Honey traps, Russian private banking: explosives or duds?

One of the tools of the espionage trade is termed a honey trap, where agents of a foreign spy organization provide sexual services to the target they want to compromise and control, film it , and use it as a tool of blackmail to force the subject to do their will.. Another tool is to trace individual’s obligations in financial dealings to use the target’s personal financial interests that could be used as a hammer over their targets that would be harmful to their political standings. The release by Buzzfeed of a “report” by a former British intelligence agent paid by opponents of Donald Trump alleging there were personal and financial knowledge held by Russian agents could have been used now or in the future to “compromise” Trump. For sometime the rumor has been circulating that Trump had $300 million in loans, debts he owed to the Russian private bank, Alfa, and that the Russians had evidence which was termed “salacious” (with conspiracy theorists thinking there may had been a honey trap involved). That these rumors and allegations made in the agent’s “report “were taken seriously was most likely because many of both sides of the aisle were puzzled why Donald Trump was constantly apologizing or was in sympathy with the policies of Russia. They were trying to find a reason why Donald Trump had made comments supportive of Russia’s territory grabbing in the Ukraine,Crimea, and Georgia, letting Russia finish and dominate the Syrian civil war, weakening NATO’s mutual defense responsibility and endangering the Baltics by failure to be protected from Russian expansionism, or denying of Russian interfering is US elections and hacking.. Sometimes Trump’s Putin bromance was owed to Trump’s vulnerability to flattery, and especially from the Russian president , whose leadership Trump openly admired. It was also owed to political connections and friendship of his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, with the deposed president of the Ukraine and an associate of Putin. The “report’ was called trash by Trump’s surrogates and spokespeople. All media, even the reporting Buzzfeed and CNN , referred to the report as unproven. Trump went even farther to accuse US intelligence agencies of leaking the “report” as was done in Nazi Germany, and to call CNN “fake news” .Trump himself claimed he had not read the report. However, the credentials of the "former" MI6 agent are sterling as more information about him has come to light. So far as any films that could be released, their degree of impact in "compromising Trump" has been greatly diminished by 46.1% of the November electorate having voted for him while willing to overlook his marital history and victim testimony about being a grabber of women’s private parts, The content of such films may not have much of an impact because it would be of little surprise since his supporters had already taken into consideration his amorality . The real problem no matter how Trump denies or attacks the allegations, his policies and actions regarding any policy involving Russia will come under close scrutiny by Congressional hearings and media. Whether such evidence validating the “report’s” findings would surface later will always be a possibility because there will be forces trying to expose it, forces especially motivated by his warfare with US intelligence agencies and the media. Their motivation was only heightened by Trump's accusations of Nazi like behavior of US intelligence agencies and calling middle of the road CNN "fake news". __________________________________________________________________________ Additional comment: (The “report’ was called trash by Trump’s surrogates and spokespeople. All media, even the reporting Buzzfeed and CNN , referred to the report as unproven. Trump went even farther to accuse US intelligence agencies of leaking the “report” as was done in Nazi Germany, and to call CNN “fake news” .Trump himself claimed he had not read the report,.) This is a pattern of his political response whenever attacked . His vintage modus has been to turn the tables, accusing the accusers of what he himself or Breitbart or RT News had been accused of doing , or that he had used some of Hitler’s techniques to discredit all opposition press, or to claim he was unaware of his supporters and association's background (as in David Duke of the KKK or mob related associates such as Joey No Socks Cinque or that he really didn't know Putin personally ). In his Wednesday, January 11, 2017 press conference he was adamant that he owed nothing or had any financial interests in or with Russia. It is of course not in Russia’s interest to provide that proof to the public since it would be a confession of their actions of which they were being accused. That he ever owed money in the past to any Russian oligarchs or the Alfa bank they control may never be known since he refuses to release his tax returns.
Alfa It is a private bank not subject to public reporting with many, many affiliates and branches, making it difficult to trace its records.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_trapping

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/12/intelligence-sources-vouch-credibility-donald-trump-russia-dossier-author
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?emc=edit_th_20170120&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=33304952&_r=0

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/01/19/new-york-times-trump-ally-roger-stone-under-investigation-possible-russia-ties/215068

Ignorance and not caring about others: two biggest political problems facing Obamacare

There are two political problems with Obamacare (also known as the Affordable Care Act or ACA): One, that 80% of our population think that they have acceptable health insurance coverage, so why be concerned about the other 20%  (the moral aspect of this not withstanding) and the other is sheer ignorance of the benefits both the 80% and the 20% get thanks to the provisions of  the ACA (Obamacare). Even some do not realize Obamacare and their ACA benefits are the same and that Obamacare is the ACA nickname. It reminds me of the ignorance of some Tea Party supporters early in their movement who held signs up "don't let the government take away my Medicare", swallowing  falsehoods that Obamacare would have done that and ignorant that Medicare was a government program.

 Nonetheless, a recent poll revealed only 18% of those surveyed wanted total repeal.  A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll: favorable s for Obamacare beat unfavorables. GOP claims that they have a public mandate to repeal is a bluff. Nonetheless,they are planning to repeal Obamacare, baiting and switching you at best for a lessor plan or, at worst , no replacement plan. Partial repeal as advocated by Trump's HEW nominee would add 18 million to the uninsured and over years, 30%. Premium prices would soar, per the Congressional Budget Office.

  It appears that pre-existing conditions and keeping kids on parents insurance until age 25 will survive if there can be an adequate means found to finance insurance of coverage of pre-existing conditions. Private insurers can continue to charge you extra for kids on your policies, with or without Obamacare. Financing pre-existing condition coverage has an enormous stumbling block in itself because it is the healthy participants that pay for the sick in both the private sector and the public one. That is a fact of mathematics  applied to any insurance plan.  That any mandate requring all eligible to pay into the ACA or face a fine will only shrink the number of healthy paying in resulting in undermining financing ability to cover pre-existing conditions.

However, here  is why I am such an advocate of Obamacare. Within my own circle and  family, let me disclose personal examples of what they would lose with repeal of Obamacare or with substandard, inadequate replacement of it.See if you fit into any of these situations:
A partially disabled friend for the first time could get proper medical attention for a chronic medical problem since he qualified for expanded Medicaid provided by Obamacare. My self employed son whose income level was too high for a subsidy still got coverage at much lower cost and much better coverage with free annual checkups and cancer screenings than before Obamacare. My daughter is contemplating leaving employment with employer insurance and will not have to go health insurance naked when she enters the private sector and starts a new business. She can get affordable health care coverage via Obamacare, probably made affordable by a subsidy because of her greatly reduced income while starting up the business. A daughter, breast cancer survivor with employer insurance, can now get mammograms and annual checks ups without high copays, and she does not have to worry anymore about life time caps on benefits. Because of the cost savings and the ACA to Medicare resulting my drug donut hole is covered and my Medicare has a 12 year extended life to 2029 and I, too, do not have copays for annual physicals and cancer screenings as I once did.

The question will be how many of these benefits will become part of Trumpcare? Would removing these standards and benefits required now of all insurance, public or private, give you "better" insurance? Or will you be back to the financial hardships of inadequate insurance and having to pay more out of your own pocket.

________________________________________________________________________

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52371

"CBO and JCT estimate that enacting that (Rep Tom Price's) legislation would affect insurance coverage and premiums primarily in these ways:

• The number of people who are uninsured would increase by 18 million in the first new plan year following enactment of the bill. Later, after the elimination of the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility and of subsidies for insurance purchased through the ACA marketplaces, that number would increase to 27 million, and then to 32 million in 2026.
• Premiums in the nongroup market (for individual policies purchased through the marketplaces or directly from insurers) would increase by 20 percent to 25 percent—relative to projections under current law—in the first new plan year following enactment. The increase would reach about 50 percent in the year following the elimination of the Medicaid expansion and the marketplace subsidies, and premiums would about double by 2026. "

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/01/03/ama-to-gop-lay-out-obamacare-replacement-details-to-americans/#7597f3a33186

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/under-tom-prices-aca-killing-plan-18m-lose-insurance-and-premiums-rise/

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2416

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/27/poll-obamacare-vs-affordable-care-act/

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/brink-repeal-obamacare-has-never-been-more-popular-n707806

Women's March on DC and state capitols to send a message to Donald Trump

(This blog posting is a priority column to be published in the Sky Hi News for  Jan 3, on)
After slicing and dicing the results of the 2016 presidential election, the question remains whether Donald Trump’s  impulsive grabbing of women’s private parts, remarks against women reporters , and the issues he supported had any impact on the outcome.,  The answer is yes. Troubling to many women  was his conversion to “pro life” and a statement he made willing to punish those who get abortions. It was one of the highest gender gaps in presidential voting history, with women voting 54% to 42%.However, the gap was not as high as it could have been since racial , high male gender turnout, and educational differences played a significant role.

None the less, with a president in the White House who will determine the next Supreme Court nominee and Congress in total control by the GOP, many women are feeling insecure about issues of equal pay and whether Roe v Wade will be upheld in the future.

Fears are not limited to women since Trump and his supporters  signaled an end to “political correctness” in public language and attitude There was overt  hostility demonstrated by himself and by his campaign supporters toward all who were not white male, including gays and the disadvantaged physically, and racial and religious minorities..The Muslim ban and registration of Muslims Trump advocated signaled a disregard of human and civil rights.

To send Trump a warning that they can mobilize women and others against him and members of Congress,  women  and those who feel threatened by the new administration’s disrespect of civil and human rights  will be marching on Washington January 21, the day before inauguration. Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three million and his electoral college vote margin was the 46th lowest in the history of 58 elections. He is beginning his term in a political position sensitive to such public pressure.

 Not all  who would like to march  will be able to make the trip to D.C so that similar, simultaneous demonstrations will be held in state capitols, including in Denver.  In Grand County transportation to the Denver march is also being organized. Contact:  Irene.cooke@gmail.com  1-970- 531-0831.   For more information visit www.marchonColorado.org.

______________________________________________________________________________________ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/trump-landslide-nope/ http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/18/hillary-clinton-presidential-election-voter-gender-gap-520579.html

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
_http://qz.com/833003/election-2016-all-women-voted-overwhelmingly-for-clinton-except-the-white-ones/_______________________________________________________________________________

The mission as stated on the www.marchonColorado.org web page are:

1) All women shall maintain the freedom and lawful protection to choose what is best for them as it concerns their biological and reproductive health.  

2)  The diverse and vibrant communities of the United States of America shall be protected from political factions that would seek to inhibit their expression and existence by implementing legal restrictions on personal freedoms. These diverse and vibrant communities are the fabric of our great country and shall not be torn by hateful, divisive, and racist rhetoric or actions.

3)   All people, regardless of gender, gender identification, ethnicity, racial heritage, disability, religion, age, sexual orientation and/or socioeconomic status shall be treated equally and equitably, with respect, dignity and justice for all.

By bringing thousands of people together online and in person at Denver’s Civic Center Park, we strive to provide an outlet and support for those who wish to:

1) Advocate for and defend the most marginalized members of our society.

2) Connect with like-minded individuals and organizations within local Colorado communities.

3) Serve as a model of peaceful demonstration for the young women and men, and girls and boys, who will be the leaders of tomorrow.

4) Honor the women and men who have come before us and fought for human and women’s rights.

The GOP's political cowardice and bait and switch: repeal Obamacare now with replacement details 3 years later

The GOP  members of Congress are planning to pull the wool over the eyes of voters. What they are proposing  to do is to make good on campaign promises to repeal Obamacare immediately , delay its implementation, and then in three years to tell consumers what they will do to replace it. The timing for the next election cycle could not be more obvious, since changes would not go into effect until after the next general elections for Congress, Senate and presidency. That is political cowardice at its worst and bait and switch consumer fraud as well. 

GOP politicians are aware they must come up with a replacement because of the political backfire if they do not. Repeal without replacement would give Colorado consumers hard times again. In Colorado, 67 thousand plus received on the average of over $300 in subsidies awarded based upon their low income levels. That is 60% of the total who bought insurance through the Colorado exchange. Over 39% of subscribers of exchange offered insurance did not require subsidies. To buy insurance on the open market, those 67,000 would have to make up the difference but due to low income, could not. These figures  do not take into account another nearly 60 thousand   receiving Medicaid  plus CHP (Child Health Care), with Medicaid  expanded to include them under provisions of Obamacare..In Grand County individuals earning less than  $15,856  or $30 thousand for a family of four have been covered by  expanded Medicaid.  Individuals earning between $15, 856  a year and $45,960  and families of four earning between $32,499 and $94,200  have qualified  for reduced cost premiums  per  income level.  Those subsidies would go away if some current GOP proposals were enacted.

For eight years GOP members  have tried to come up with a replacement plan that even comes close to the coverage, consumer protection standards,  and affordability of Obamacare , and have not found one. Pres.elect Trump's cabinet pick for Health and Human services, Tom Price, has a plan, but experts looking at it conclude it would leave consumers sicker and poorer.18 to 27 million would lose health insurance and premiums would increase 20 to 25%, per the Congressional Budget Office. Implementation plans also creates such uncertainty  that within that three year period, insurers will pull out of Obamacare, not because they are being mean-spirited, but because the uncertainty will lead to business decisions inherent in the insurance industry. What should be demanded, not that it will since the GOP controls both houses of Congress, is that any repeal  must be accompanied with replacement at the same time so that the public can see who  of the current near 20 million getting benefits from subsidized medical insurance or expanded Medicaid   and those receiving employer provided insurance now meeting high standards  will get screwed.

GOP members are talking about retaining popular provisions of requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions and permitting kids under 25 to be covered by their parents' insurance. How to pay for pre-existing coverage is the question not answered since under Obamacare the healthy insured expand the pool to spread the cost around. Attempts to provide subsidies to premiums restricted to those with pre-existing coverage have failed in states  including Colorado that have tried it because of the costs.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Furthermore those left without insurance would once again burden hospitals' ER rooms and require more charity care, with costs passed on to consumers who had insurance in the form of higher premiums.

There are some hidden benefits to those receiving employers insurance and Medicare that could go away if the GOP had its way. What those receiving insurance from their employers do not often realize is that Obamacare requires 80% of premiums to be used for actual coverage, and not for advertising or high exec salaries or extravagant overhead. Large employers are required to provide insurance. Lifetime caps on benefits are forbidden. Cancer screenings and annual checkups are required with no co-pays.   Furthermore, Obamacare cut health care  increasing costs to the federal government enough to extend the life of Medicare  at least 12  years to 2029 and that would have to be made up in some way. Obamacare also requires Medicare to cover cancer screenings and annual checkups without co-pays and closes the donut hole in drug coverage.

Addendum:  My comments posted on Facebook January 4, 2017.

For the  life of me wonder why it is helpful for the struggling middle class to take away their health insurance and replace it with either nothing or a worse, more expensive one devoid of protections from such as life time caps, high or no coverage of annual physicals or cancer screenings. These benefits affect all of those getting medicare, medicaid, employer provided insurance or insurance bought on the exchanges. Let us see how much the GOP intends to keep these protections and benefits. Bet they won't. Stay tuned. I noted, too, in an earlier statement by the GOP that the reason the GOP is planning to replace Obamacare gradually is their concern for the business interests of the insurers. Ha. It certainly isn't out of concern for the interests of the struggling middle class. The Democrats need to shout that one from the mountain top, too.

Addendum: Feb. 27, 2017:
Ali Velshi  on CNN interviews person from Columbia U. Half of the 20K covered by Obamacare get Medicaid Expansion (11 mil).. 31 states did Medicaid expansion; half have GOP governors.  Right now states and federal government split costs and GOP proposals floated would give the states a block grant, but no guarantee in future would be enough or would the block grants be the same.
Currently subsidies for those on Exchanges based upon sliding scale of income. GOP proposals would change that to one based on age and young people would get $2K credit (enough for catastrophic, but not much more) and older people would get $4K credit. However, cost of older people 5x younger so not enough for the older, sicker. 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/under-tom-prices-aca-killing-plan-18m-lose-insurance-and-premiums-rise/

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2016-12-02/republican-replacement-plans-for-obamacare-likely-to-make-health-care-worse

http://files.kff.org/attachment/Issue-Brief-High-Risk-Pools-For-Uninsurable-Individuals

http://www.denverpost.com/2012/01/15/colorado-high-risk-health-insurance-pool-runs-up-claims-twice-the-u-s-average/

https://www.healthinsurance.org/colorado-state-health-insurance-exchange/

https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/affordable-care-act/affordable-care-act.html

 https://www.healthinsurance.org/colorado-state-health-insurance-exchange/
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-insurance/articles/2014/11/14/will-obamacare-affect-medicare-myths-and-facts
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/health/hospitals-medicaid-obamacare-trump.html?emc=edit_th_20161228&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=33304952&_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/health/hospitals-medicaid-obamacare-trump.html?emc=edit_th_20161228&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=33304952&_r=0

Republican talk of dismantling Obamacare means insurers likely to bolt

By J.B. Silvers,

HUFFINGTONPOST.COM