Independent Women's Forum RSS feedhttp://www.iwf.orgThe RSS feed for the IWF. News/Commentary, Blog posts and publications(...)IWF RSS problem of health care spending • One News Now HeathFri, 31 Jul 2015 10:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumAnalyst diagnoses problem of healthcare spending<p> A policy analyst agrees with a government forecast on healthcare spending.&nbsp;</p> <p> According to a report by the Office of the Actuary in the Health and Human Services Department, spending on healthcare will outpace the nation&#39;s overall economic growth over the next decade. The increase is attributed to expanded insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act, more demand and an aging population.</p> <p> <span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">&quot;A lot of this is no surprise because the Baby Boomers - one of our biggest generations - are nearing the age in life when they start to deal with more health problems and more complex health problems,&quot; responds Hadley Heath Manning, director of health policy at the </span></span><a href=""><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Independent Women&#39;s Forum</span></span></a><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">.&nbsp;</span></span></strong></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">&quot;And I think this is just further evidence,&quot; she adds, &quot;that the so-called Affordable Care Act didn&#39;t actually do anything to attack the root causes of rising healthcare costs in this country.&quot;</span></strong></span></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Manning adds that Americans have expensive healthcare, which she attributes to a wealthy nation in which people can spend money on healthcare beyond basic necessities like food and shelter.&nbsp;</span></strong></span></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">&quot;And we see evidence of a dip in healthcare spending during the Great Recession because a lot of people had to put their healthcare dollars aside and say, </span><em><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">You know,</span></em><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">&nbsp;</span><em><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">I&#39;ll address that problem when I have more resources</span></em><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">,&quot; she notes.</span></strong></span></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Still, Manning says the biggest problem is that the healthcare industry, which is approaching one-fifth of our economy, does not have a real competitive marketplace.</span></strong></span></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">&quot;And the Affordable Care Act basically shifts its money around by taxing and spending a lot more on healthcare but it didn&#39;t do anything to address the real root cause of that problem,&quot; she claims.&nbsp;</span></strong></span></span></p> HeathFri, 31 Jul 2015 10:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumMedicare is officially over the hill — and way over budget<p> Medicare is officially over the hill as well as way over budget.</p> <p> Fifty years ago this week, President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare, the program that provides health insurance for seniors, into law. While most conservative seniors might not like to admit it, Medicare is socialized medicine. It is a single-payer program for people over 65, and because it is government-run, it suffers from the same problems as other government health regimes: red ink, price controls, and limited choices for both patients and doctors.</p> <p> As health experts <a href=";mc_eid=22cfe9edbc">Merrill Matthews and&nbsp;Grace-Marie Turner point out</a>, Medicare was initially expected to cost $9 billion annually by 1990. As is common with government programs, these initial cost projections were woefully inaccurate. The actual annual cost of the program in 1990 was $67 billion, and last year (2014), the U.S. spent more than $600 billion on Medicare alone.</p> <p> Some people might shrug their shoulders at these numbers. They consider Medicare an earned benefit because everyone pays taxes while working to become entitled to Medicare during retirement.</p> <p> It would be one thing if the government simply took our Medicare money, held it for us, and dished it back out to us during retirement so we could all buy health insurance. And indeed, many people think this is how Medicare works! But really our Medicare taxes are just like any other tax, and benefits during retirement are distributed according to need, not according to how much someone paid in. Therefore, the average senior is getting about $3 of benefits for every $1 he paid in.</p> <p> As a result of this mismatch in revenues and benefits, Medicare&rsquo;s 75-year unfunded obligations range between <a href="">$28 trillion and $35 trillion.</a></p> <p> Despite financial troubles, Medicare enjoys great popularity today, especially among seniors who are reaping the benefits. Some call the program, along with Social Security, the &ldquo;third rail of politics,&rdquo; because no one wants to talk about reforming or changing it. Instead, it seems the two major political parties are, for the most part, committing to maintaining the status quo (which is headed toward bankruptcy).</p> <p> The latest politician to buck the trend (and get punished for it) was House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan who, after proposing reforms to Medicare, was depicted pushing a wheelchair-bound grandmother off a cliff <a href="">in a political ad</a>. Of course, Rep. Ryan&rsquo;s proposal would not have affected how the Medicare program works for people <a href=";">over age 55</a>&hellip; but that inconvenient truth wasn&rsquo;t mentioned in any of the attacks on his plan.</p> <p> Rep. Ryan was trying to do the responsible thing by suggesting reforms to Medicare that would infuse market forces into the program. Like some other reformers, Ryan supports transitioning Medicare to a &ldquo;<a href="">premium-support</a>&rdquo; model that would give healthcare dollars back to seniors in the form of a voucher that they could then use to buy a private insurance plan of their choosing.</p> <p> Not only would this give seniors more choice and control over their healthcare dollars, but it would save tremendous amounts of money, as plans would have to compete to get the business of seniors.</p> <p> Today there are about <a href="">54 million Americans</a> covered by Medicare. While current beneficiaries would most likely be grandfathered out of any reforms, this figure shows the scale of Medicare&rsquo;s market share. Imagine if those consumers returned to the private market: That&rsquo;s a lot of business for insurers to compete for and could profoundly impact our health insurance system for the better.</p> <p> Maybe in 50 more years, policymakers will see the merit of this approach. But by then it may already be too late. As Romina Boccia at <a href="">the Heritage Foundation</a> has pointed out, &ldquo;<a href="">Medicare&rsquo;s&nbsp;trustees</a>&nbsp;project the Part A trust fund will be depleted in 2030 at which point benefits could be paid only to the extent revenue comes in, meaning either benefit cuts, tax increases or some combination of both.&rdquo;</p> <p> Even in the face of political attacks, real leaders are bold enough to propose solutions and act responsibly to honor all stakeholders. We all, as taxpayers and as potential future Medicare patients, have a stake in solving this problem. We should cheer those few brave voices who recognize that &ndash; even after 50 years &ndash; change is necessary. And we should support their efforts.</p> HeathThu, 30 Jul 2015 13:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumUnhappy 50th Birthday Medicare and Medicaid<p> In 1961, Ronald Reagan gave a famous speech on socialized medicine. His words were prophetic, and could apply to a variety of bad ideas about government-run health care. But at this point in time, Reagan was trying to warn the American people about liberal proposals to fund health insurance for senior citizens through Medicare and for low-income people in Medicaid. These proposals became law 50 years ago today, on July 30, 1965.</p> <p> Here&#39;s one of the most quoted and well known parts of <a href="">Reagan&#39;s 1961 speech</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p> One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It&rsquo;s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can&rsquo;t afford it.</p> </blockquote> <p> Reagan went on to describe the events of this time:</p> <blockquote> <p> Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman Administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.</p> <p> So, with the American people on record as&nbsp;not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that&nbsp;all people of social security&nbsp;age should be brought under a program&nbsp;of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents&nbsp;and those who&nbsp;are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone&nbsp;eligible for&nbsp;Social Security.</p> <p> Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea&nbsp;of&nbsp;just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the- door&nbsp;philosophy, because he said &ldquo;if we can&nbsp;only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p> Hm, anyone know of any recent expansions of government into health care?</p> <p> Reagan was right: Medicare and Medicaid are single-payer programs that liberals established in hopes of one day including every individual American in a universal, government-run health program.&nbsp;</p> <p> Some people will point out that Reagan was no saint when it comes to healthcare policy: He signed EMTALA into law, the Emergency Medical Treatment law that requires hospitals to treat everyone. He expanded Medicaid, and he introduced Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) to Medicare (a form of price setting).&nbsp;</p> <p> Unlike ObamaCare, Medicare and Medicaid have, even since their passing votes into law, enjoyed some bipartisan support. ObamaCare, on the other hand, had zero support from any Republicans whatsoever, and that&#39;s part of the reason it remains so divisive (instead of enjoying the broader popularity we see in Medicare and Medicaid).</p> <p> But regardless of what reforms have happened over these past 50 years in the history of Medicare and Medicaid, the programs continue to face challenges today. There are budget shortfalls, too-low and too-slow provider reimbursements, limited access to care, and threats to the sustainability of these behemoth programs.</p> <p> It&#39;s not a very happy 50th birthday for these Great Society programs. And it&#39;s not a very &quot;Great Society&quot; that ignores these problems. Millions of people (54 million enrolled in Medicare and 70 million enrolled in Medicaid) are trapped in a government-run healthcare system (along with our veterans in the VA). These programs might sound like a humanitarian project, but they&#39;ve actually limited how the market could provide innovative, efficient, high-quality care for those who need it most.&nbsp;</p> <p> On a positive note, it&#39;s not too late to reform these programs. By offering more choice and competition, Medicare and Medicaid could be transformed into market-friendly, consumer-friendly programs. After 50 years of price setting and government control, aren&#39;t we ready to try a different direction?</p> HeathThu, 30 Jul 2015 10:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumWomen's support of gun rights & Amy Schumer's conservative critique of 'hook-up' culture in 'Trainwreck' • Stacy Petty HeathTue, 28 Jul 2015 14:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumVP Biden launches economic tour • Cavuto Coast-To-Coast HeathTue, 21 Jul 2015 13:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumCongress Focuses On Oversight And Investigation Of ObamaCare Failures<p> After the Supreme Court&rsquo;s bizarre decision validating the IRS&rsquo; illegal Obamacare rule, Congress is opening a new chapter in the debate over the health overhaul law by focusing on oversight and investigations to protect taxpayers and the rule of law.</p> <p> Action is underway in Congress:</p> <p> <strong>The Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee</strong> is holding a <a href="">hearing this Friday</a> to examine the ACA&rsquo;s state exchanges and will question witnesses about documented reports of mismanagement, broken promises, and wasted taxpayer dollars.</p> <p> Chairman Rep. Tim Murphy, R-PA, said, &ldquo;The administration&rsquo;s mismanagement of the president&rsquo;s signature health care law not only led to a meltdown on day one, several states were awarded more than $4.5 billion in taxpayer dollars without seemingly any oversight and management from the administration, leaving a trail of broken systems across the country&hellip;We will remain steadfast in our oversight of this broken law as we continue our efforts to protect Americans from its costly consequences.&rdquo;</p> <p> <strong>The Senate Finance Committee</strong> held a hearing last week to examine enrollment controls in the federal government&rsquo;s ObamaCare website,; In an undercover investigation, the <a href="">Government Accountability Office</a> created fictitious identities to apply for premium tax subsidies through; Eleven out of 12 fake applications were approved, and fabricated documents were accepted without any attempts to verify their authenticity.</p> <p> Chairman Orrin <a href="">Hatch said</a> the website &ldquo;failed spectacularly&rdquo; in protecting against fraud and that &ldquo;encountered mind-boggling levels of incompetence and inefficiency at nearly every turn&rdquo; as it conducted undercover enrollment.</p> <p> No effort is made on the website to detect fraudulent enrollments, and Sen. Hatch observed: &ldquo;it seems obvious, at least to me, that the administration is preoccupied with signing up as many applicants as possible, ignoring potential fraud and integrity issues.&rdquo;</p> <p> According to the Congressional Budget Office, the estimated cost of subsidies and related spending under the act is $28 billion for fiscal year 2015, rising to $103 billion for fiscal year 2025, and totaling $849 billion for fiscal years 2016&ndash;2025.</p> <p> <strong>The House Ways and Means Committee&rsquo;s</strong> Oversight subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Peter Roskam, R-IL, <a href="">held a hearing&nbsp;</a>in late June on the effects of Obamacare on health premiums. &nbsp;The president&rsquo;s promise to cut the typical family&rsquo;s premium by about $2,500 a year has been disgracefully broken, with consumers not seeing cuts but instead dramatic increases in their health insurance premiums.</p> <p> In May, Roskam held a hearing to examine the use of administrative actions in implementing health law.&nbsp; The Galen Institute <a href="">testified</a> about our research that shows the administration has illegally changed the law now at least <a href="">34 times</a>.&nbsp; A witness siding with the administration <a href="">withered</a> under the chairman&rsquo;s questions focusing on the administration&rsquo;s abuse of the rule of law.</p> <p> <strong>Special Inspector General:</strong>&nbsp; Chairman Roskam has introduced legislation <a href="">calling for</a> a Special Inspector General for Monitoring the Affordable Care Act (SIGMA) to investigate the administration&rsquo;s actions and track how tens of billions of dollars have been spent. Implementation of the sweeping and complex law stretches across eight separate federal agencies so no one agency Inspector General can see the patterns and possible abuses taking place.</p> <p> <span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Hadley Heath Manning of the Independent Women&rsquo;s Forum </span></span><a href=""><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">argues</span></span></a><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">, &ldquo;Democrats may hesitate to support more oversight of a program that they created. Yet if they truly want this law to succeed, they ought to want to prevent the misuse of resources and ensure a clear record of the law&rsquo;s implementation.&rdquo;</span></span></strong></span></p> <p> <strong>House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: </strong>The Oregon exchange fiasco deserves particular congressional attention as a poster child of wasted taxpayer dollars. Oregon began with an ambitious agenda: Flush with federal grants, it not only planned to create its own state health care exchange &ndash; the &ldquo;Cover Oregon&rdquo; portal through which people could shop for and purchase subsidized health insurance &ndash; but also to fully modernize the information technology infrastructure for all of its health care programs.</p> <p> Numerous reports and emails show Cover Oregon was fraught with <a href="">mismanagement and political maneuverings</a>, and the state abandoned the site last year after spending more than $300 million in federal tax dollars.&nbsp; The state is now embroiled in lawsuits with its primary vendor, Oracle, and current and former Oregon officials are the subject of congressional and other federal investigations. There is ample material here for other committees of jurisdiction to investigate this poster-child failure.</p> <p> Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-UT, who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, <a href="">is demanding</a> all communication about the Oregon site between employees of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), all documents related to the site&rsquo;s functioning, and a description of changes CMS made to its processes on grants and information technology related to federal and state ObamaCare websites.</p> <p> The committee also contacted former Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber in February to <a href="">request documents</a>&nbsp;related to involvement in Cover Oregon by members of his campaign team. The committee wants to know whether decisions about the exchange &ldquo;may have been based on politics not policy and campaign advisors working on your re-election campaign may have coordinated the state&rsquo;s response to the Cover Oregon roll-out.&rdquo; Any subpoenas will need to include both official and g-mail communications among all political consultants involved with Cover Oregon.</p> <p> Chaffetz told the&nbsp;<a href=""><em>Washington Times</em></a>, &ldquo;[T]here is a curious crossover between the political and the executive branch in Oregon, and it doesn&rsquo;t smell right, and it doesn&rsquo;t look right and there&rsquo;s a lot of smoke. There are hundreds of millions of dollars that need to be accounted for. It&rsquo;s highly suspicious, and we intend to get to the bottom of it.&rdquo;</p> <p> Emails uncovered so far show that Kitzhaber handed oversight of Cover Oregon to re-election campaign consultant charged with rescuing the governor from the political fallout from the state&rsquo;s fatally flawed management of the project.&nbsp; The governor tried to cover up the evidence by trying to have relevant emails deleted from state servers before he resigned early this year.</p> <p> <strong>Confirmation hearings:</strong> Sen. Hatch also sent a warning signal that he plans to challenge President Obama&rsquo;s nominee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Andy Slavitt, about his involvement in the exchange fiasco.</p> <p> Slavitt &ldquo;was personally involved in this process,&rdquo; Hatch said, referring to the federal website.&nbsp; &ldquo;As the committee considers his nomination, I look forward to asking Mr. Slavitt about this investigation and why CMS has been interfering with our oversight efforts.&rdquo;&nbsp; He would be well advised to ask about the billions of dollars shelled out to state exchanges as well, including Oregon.</p> <p> <strong>Co-op fiasco:</strong>&nbsp; Finally, an under-reported waste of taxpayer dollars deserves congressional attention &ndash; the co-op boondoggle.The ACA created the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (co-op) program to satisfy supporters of the &ldquo;public option&rdquo; health plan.<img border="0" height="3" src="file://localhost/Users/celiabigelow/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_image018.png" width="3" /></p> <p> This grand experiment has primarily shown the fallacy of giving $2.4 billion in taxpayer dollars to people who know nothing about the health insurance market. &nbsp;<a href="">All but one</a> of the 23 co-ops created are operating in the red.&nbsp; Other investigations have shown that executives of these &ldquo;consumer-directed non-profits&rdquo; were paying themselves <a href="">lavish salaries</a>, from nearly $250,000 to nearly $600,000 a year.</p> <p> Congress has few tools in its arsenal to make major changes to the law as long as it faces the president&rsquo;s veto pen.&nbsp; But it can spend the next 18 months investigating the Obama administration&rsquo;s reckless use of taxpayer dollars in implementing the law to convince the American people of the imperative to repair the damage with new policies that return market power to consumers.</p> HeathTue, 21 Jul 2015 12:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumWill Donald Trump harm or help the GOP? • Your World HeathFri, 17 Jul 2015 10:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumFake applicants automatically reenrolled in ObamaCare<p> News of fake ObamaCare applicants getting to renew coverage brings some of President Obama&#39;s remarks about the healthcare law back into question.</p> <p> The Government Accountability Office, which is part of the federal government, says <a href="">automatically reenrolled</a> 11 counterfeit characters created by the GAO last year. That&#39;s despite many of them having unresolved documentation issues.</p> <p> Prior to the recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld federal subsidies for people enrolling on, President Obama <a href="">said</a>, &quot;This [healthcare law] is working.&quot; The president also said, &quot;It does not need fixing.&quot;</p> <p> <span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Based on that, OneNewsNow asks Hadley Heath Manning, director of health policy for the </span></span><a href=""><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Independent Women&#39;s Forum</span></span></a><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;"> this question: If a paid government employee was able to create a fictitious person to successfully enroll in the healthcare law, does that show that this law is working and does not need fixing?&nbsp;</span></span></strong></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">&quot;Oh, no, I think that this is a very clear trend,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;You know, you can ask the public, &#39;Do they think ObamaCare needs fixing?&#39; And more people will say either (a) they want to repeal it or (b) they want major changes made to the law than you will see responding and saying things like &#39;It doesn&#39;t need fixing&#39; or &#39;It is working&#39; or &#39;It only needs minor fixes.&#39; So, I think it&#39;s pretty obvious.&quot;</span></strong></span></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Meanwhile, Manning questions how many government reports it takes for people to recognize that this law is not only &quot;failing&quot; to deliver on many of the promises that people made about it. She argues it&#39;s actually contributing to more waste, fraud and abuse in government, while creating more inefficiencies for the healthcare system that is so important for people when they actually do need to access healthcare.</span></strong></span></span></p> <p> OneNewsNow also sought comment from Yevgeniy Feyman, fellow and deputy director of the Center for Medical Progress at the <a href="">Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research</a>.</p> <p> &quot;I think it&#39;s good that we have GAO doing this,&quot; he states. &quot;You know, it makes me less trusting of what [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)] is doing on their end, but I&#39;ll say this to CMS&#39;s credit: They did remove a number of people who were not able to provide immigration verification last year from the rolls.&quot;</p> <p> He continues: &quot;So my sense is they probably are able to catch bad enrollment, people who enroll incorrectly, eventually. Certainly, some slip through. I think this is going to be a challenge and I think government is going to be worse at handling that challenge than say a private contractor would be. But I do have hope that moving forward they&#39;ll get better at this.&quot;</p> <p> On Thursday, Senate Democrats began pushing back against the undercover investigation. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) said the probe didn&#39;t uncover any real-world fraud, and the investigators themselves admit the findings do not apply to the 10 million people getting coverage.</p> <p> About those remarks, Feyman says: &quot;He is literally correct about that: GAO didn&#39;t identify any particular fraud; they didn&#39;t identify fraudulent enrollment. But certainly, if CMS can&#39;t catch that fraudulent enrollment, it means they probably can&#39;t catch any real fraudulent enrollment. It&#39;s kind of a weak defense. It&#39;s like saying, <em>You didn&#39;t find anything, and we can&#39;t find anything either, so there you</em> go. It&#39;s not a strong defense of the program, but sure, he&#39;s literally right.&quot;</p> <p> <em>The Associated Press</em> <a href="">reports</a> that the GAO&#39;s audits chief thinks the investigation exposed real concerns. Meanwhile, the audits chief says it was relatively easy for GAO&#39;s fictitious characters to get and keep coverage.</p> HeathFri, 17 Jul 2015 08:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumHealth Consolidation: Bad News for Consumers • Stacy Petty Show HeathTue, 14 Jul 2015 12:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumIWF's Manning: Hillary's Talking Like Warren, Wants to 'Soak the Rich' <p> Hillary Clinton is starting to sound like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, one expert tells Newsmax.</p> <p> <strong><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Hadley Heath Manning, a senior policy analyst for the Independent Women&#39;s Forum, appeared on </span></span><a href=""><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Newsmax TV&#39;s </span></span></a><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">&quot;The Hard Line&quot; Monday night and tells host Ed Berliner she sees similarities between Clinton and the senator from the Bay State.</span></span></span></strong></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><strong><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">&quot;It&#39;s funny, she has really embraced popularism and is talking a lot like Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Elizabeth Warren right now,&quot; Manning says. &quot;But she is talking about soaking the rich. You ask where she&#39;s going to get this money from. She wants to blame the rich for the economic problems in this country and &hellip;&quot;</span></span></strong></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Berliner then points out that Clinton is one of the wealthy, to which Manning replies, &quot;She is one of the rich, exactly, exactly, that&#39;s what I mean. She speaks like a populist but in her own personal experience and her own personal life, she wasn&#39;t dead broke or flat broke, as she said when she and her husband, former President Clinton, left the White House. They weren&#39;t leaving as poor people, they haven&#39;t experienced what it&#39;s like, especially in recent years, in recent times as [fellow guest] John [Fund] says, to work as a part timer in the Obama economy, but she&#39;s looking for a boogie man.</span></strong></span></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">&quot;Bottom line, she wants to blame the problems of our economy on the rich, on institutions, financial institutions rather than accepting the fact that it&#39;s the progressive mentality, the progressive policies that we&#39;ve seen under the Obama administration that are really causing the economy to hold back.&quot;</span></strong></span></span></p> <p> <span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Manning&#39;s comments come on the same day </span></span><a href=""><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Clinton spoke about the economy </span></span></a><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">during a speech in New York City. Clinton vowed to crack down on Wall Street excess and said she would support raising the minimum wage.</span></span></strong></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">&quot;I just wish Mrs. Clinton would have acknowledged the fact that increasingly we&#39;re a nation of part-time workers and of people working 29 hours a week because of Obamacare, which of course she&#39;s a big supporter of, it&#39;s a direct descendent of Hillarycare,&quot; John Fund, Newsmax contributor and columnist for National Review Online, tells Newsmax TV.</span></strong></span></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">&quot;She should have had the intellectual honesty to say, &#39;yes, of course people need a raise but we also need to find a way to get people who want to work 40 hours a week and can&#39;t the chance to do so.&#39;&quot;</span></strong></span></span></p> HeathTue, 14 Jul 2015 12:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumCrowded Field: Another GOP presidential contender enters the race • Newsmax HeathMon, 13 Jul 2015 13:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumElectric vehicles create more pollution than gas-fueled cars & are women really saving $ on birth control? • Garrison HeathThu, 9 Jul 2015 13:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumIWF doesn't see ObamaCare middle ground this presidency<p> Much is publicized these days about <a href="">rate increases</a> and policies that cover this procedure, but not that medication. Similar things were experienced before the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare became law, but supporters of the legislation say the ACA was going to make things better. And now that the Supreme Court has upheld federal subsidies for people on the federal health insurance exchange, President Obama has stated that the ACA is here to stay.&nbsp;He has also urged lawmakers to <a href="">change the conversation about repealing the law</a> and focus instead on improving things.</p> <p> <span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Hadley Heath Manning, director of health policy at the </span></span><a href=""><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Independent Women&#39;s Forum</span></span></a><span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="background-color:#ea425b;"> (IWF), does not see that happening&nbsp;while President Obama is in office.</span></span></strong></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">&quot;I just think the changes that he&#39;s willing to make are so minor and so distant from the bigger changes that Republicans would ask for that there is really not going to be a lot of room for middle ground,&quot; she comments, &quot;at least not in a way that significantly impacts the consumer experience or significantly changes the way people experience ObamaCare.&quot;</span></strong></span></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">Meanwhile, Manning thinks Democrats, including President Obama, are beginning to think about next year&#39;s presidential election.</span></strong></span></span></p> <p> <span style="color:#ffffff;"><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><span style="background-color:#ea425b;">&quot;Whoever the nominee is going to be on the Democratic side is going to have to go to an American public that still does not favor this law and talk about how to change it, how to fix it without repealing it and without making major changes,&quot; the health policy director poses. &quot;So, that&#39;s the political line that I believe Democrats are trying to walk now. The next candidate for president is going to be someone who I believe will talk to the American people about fixing ObamaCare, but certainly not about changing it in any significant way,&nbsp;because that would be seen as a victory for Republicans.&quot;</span></strong></span></span></p> HeathThu, 9 Jul 2015 13:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's ForumPodcast #14: Unhealthy Consequences of Government Nutrition Initiatives<p> Hadley Heath Manning, IWF's Director of Health Policy, sits down with IWF Culture of Alarmism Director Julie Gunlock to discuss the unhealthy consequences of government nutrition initiatives. Government is increasingly meddling in American food manufacturing and consumption. Many accept these measures as harmless: what’s the matter with government nudging people to eat healthier? Hadley and Julie discuss why these initiatives come at a high cost in terms of higher food prices, in wasted tax dollars, and even—ironically—to our health. They answer why it is in the best interest of Americans for government to get out of the diet business.</p> <p> &nbsp;</p> HeathWed, 8 Jul 2015 13:07:00 CSTen-usIndependent Women's Forum