Joining today's show are Sam Stein, Mike Barnicle, Joshua Green, Chris ‘Mad Dog’ Russo, Secy. Tom Perez, David Ignatius, Chuck Todd, Sebastian Junger, Sen. Dean Heller, Sen. Bob Casey, Mohammed Fairouz, Cindi Leive, Piers Morgan, Brian Sullivan, Bellamy Young, Dr. Ellen Marmur...
Why didn't the locker room attendants deflate the 12th ball? Why did he do only 11 out of 12 balls? Remember how Robert Kraft was pissed off while demanding an apology for that accusation? Tom Brady also denied knowing about it at that press conference, however, Tom Brady likely knew of 'inappropriate activities,' Deflategate report says.
The evidence listed in Wednesday's "Deflategate" report is eye-catching:
-- Text messages between a part-time New England Patriots employee and an equipment assistant with talk of cash, free shoes and autographs.
-- The part-time employee -- a locker room attendant responsible for 12 footballs before the AFC title game -- spending 100 seconds in a bathroom after game officials had approved the balls for play.
-- Measurements taken at halftime after a team that is losing tips off the league about footballs that appear to be too soft.
-- The Patriots' star quarterback and the equipment assistant suddenly exchanging phone calls in the days just after news of underinflated footballs blew up.
Those are the key points in the 139-page NFL-commissioned report given to the league's brass. The Patriots beat the Colts 45-7 in the January 18 AFC title game and went on to win the Super Bowl. Controversy swirled after the Colts raised concerns that the footballs used solely by the Patriots' offense in the first half were underinflated. Report points finger at QB Tom Brady. The report, prepared by attorney Ted Wells, found that "it is more probable than not" that Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was "at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities" of locker room attendant Jim McNally and equipment assistant John Jastremski, who has been with the team since 2001. The report also found that "it is more probable than not" that McNally and Jastremski "participated in a deliberate effort to release air from Patriots game balls after the balls were examined by the referee" in violation of NFL rules in the AFC Championship. "Based on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady ... was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities ... involving the release of air from Patriots game balls," Wells wrote.
The repeated use of the phrase "more probable than not" sparked immediate social media sarcasm, with one NFL fan writing on Twitter: "I have concluded that it is more probable than not that I will continue to not give a crap about Deflategate." It also prompted a radio sports host in Boston to tweet, "It is more probable than not that the Wells Investigation was a complete waste of time."
The report said there was no evidence that any other Patriots player or staffer was involved, adding specifically that investigators do not believe coach Bill Belichick, any other coach or the team's ownership took part in or knew of any wrongdoing. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said that Troy Vincent, the league's executive vice president of football operations, will decide on possible penalties and if the game-day process for delivering footballs to the field needs to be changed.
The evidence against Brady, a future Hall of Famer and a marquee player in the NFL, is largely circumstantial. He told investigators that he had no involvement and no knowledge of a plan to deflate footballs that would be used by the Patriots before the AFC title game. But the report said his claims were not plausible and contradicted by other evidence. He also refused to turn over his cell phone.
Angry text. The evidence linking Brady to the controversy includes texts where McNally and Jastremski discuss the quarterback and his air pressure preference that would affect the feel and ability to grip the football. For instance, Brady was apparently upset after the balls used in an October game against the New York Jets (each team provided the balls used by its offense) had too much air in them. His criticism upset McNally. McNally: Tom sucks...im going make that next ball a (expletive) balloon. Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done...Jastremski: I told him it was. He was right though...Jastremski: I checked some of the balls this morn... The refs (expletive) us...a few of then were at almost 16.
New England won the game 27-25 and Brady completed just 20 of 37 passes. In another text message sent before the season started, McNally calls himself the "deflator" and tells Jastremski that he needs some new shoes. Eleven days before the AFC championship game, McNally texts the equipment assistant and reminds him to have Brady autograph two footballs and to get him some shoes.
Below the minimum pressure. Brady completed 23 of 35 passes in the AFC championship game. Three passes were for touchdowns and one was intercepted. Before the game, McNally brought the Patriots' footballs to referee Walt Anderson, who determined all but two of the balls were properly inflated. They were adjusted, but when the official looked for the balls before heading to the field, they were missing.
Surveillance video showed that McNally had taken the Patriots' and Colts' balls -- in violation of NFL procedure -- to a bathroom and was in there for one minute, 40 seconds. McNally then took the balls to the field. The Patriots took a 14-0 lead before one of Brady's passes was picked off. The report said that after the interception, a Colts equipment staff member measured the air pressure of the ball, one of the Patriots' game balls, and told a game official and NFL personnel that the ball was below the 12.5 pounds per square inch minimum measurement.At halftime, the alternate game officials measured the pressure in 11 of the Patriots' 12 game balls and four provided by the Colts. The two sets of measurements differed by about fourth-tenths of one pound, but none of the 11 Patriots balls met the minimum standard. The Patriots have said environmental factors such as cold temperatures led to the loss of pressure in the balls. The temperature at the stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts, when the game began was around 50 degrees. The report also found that three of the four Colts' balls tested were underinflated when measured by one alternate official. The balls were 12.5 PSI or above when tested by the other official. News of the Deflategate controversy was first reported on Twitter during the game by longtime Indianapolis sports columnist Bob Kravitz.
Investigators found Brady and Jastremski spoke on the phone six times over the next three days. The quarterback also sent text messages "seemingly designed to calm Jastremski ('You good Jonny boy?'; 'You doing good?')," according to the report, which added the two hadn't corresponded during the previous six months. Investigators said the phone exchanges were evidence of Brady's awareness to the scheme.
Patriots disappointed. Patriots owner Robert Kraft was defiant in response to Wednesday's report, saying he was disappointed in the findings and still believed the team did nothing to violate NFL rules. Kraft criticized what he called "inferences from circumstantial evidence," adding that "the time, effort and resources expended to reach this conclusion are incomprehensible to me." "To say we are disappointed in its findings, which do not include any incontrovertible or hard evidence of deliberate deflation of footballs at the AFC Championship Game, would be a gross understatement," Kraft said. Brady denied knowledge of tampering with footballs during his interview with investigators, according to the report. He answered questions voluntarily but declined to make available communications, including texts and emails, the report said. Brady made the same denial to reporters on January 22, days after the game. "I didn't alter the ball in any way. I have no knowledge of wrongdoing," Brady said. He has not commented on the findings of the report. CNN's Jason Durand, Greg Botelho and Henry Hanks contributed to this report.
I wonder what (Mike) Barnicle is going to say about it. How will he react to it? There is no way that the equipment did this on their own without Brady knowing about it. Those staffers would not even go to the bathroom if t involved Brady, without letting him know about it. Thats logic speaking but the proof is not overwhelming.Regardless of the Pat's constantly going over that line if you will, tornadoes raked the southern Plains Wednesday, overturning cars on an Oklahoma City interstate and destroying dozens of homes. No deaths were immediately reported from the twisters that hit Oklahoma and rural parts of Kansas and Nebraska.
The worst damage seemed to be in the Oklahoma City area. A twister destroyed homes at Bridge Creek, Amber and Blanchard, southwest of the city, and it appeared another tornado touched down later Wednesday evening when a second storm came through the area.
"We have damage reports, so we do strongly think there was a tornado on the south side of Oklahoma City," meteorologist Michael Scotten with the National Weather Service in Norman said after the second storm that hit around 8:40 p.m. That storm flipped vehicles on Interstate 35 and left power lines strewn across the roadway, Scotten said.
Lara O'Leary, a spokeswoman for Emergency Medical Services Authority said late Wednesday that the company transported 12 patients from a trailer park in south Oklahoma City to local hospitals. She did not have further details about the extent of the patients' injuries. A tornado passes near Halstead, Kan., Wednesday, May 6, 2015. In Grady County, all animals were accounted for after a zoo about 25 miles southwest of Oklahoma City was hit by a tornado, Alisa Voegeli, a dispatcher at the sheriff's office, said.
The storms dumped up to 6 inches in the southern part of Oklahoma City, prompting the city to issue a flash flood emergency for the first time in its history, said city spokeswoman Kristy Yager. Road crews were waiting for the storms to abate to set up barricades and evaluate trouble spots. "They'll dispatch as soon as the storms end and the weather clears," Yager said.
O'Leary said the ambulance service responded to water rescues "all over" the Oklahoma City metro area. Two ambulance crews required also assistance after getting stuck in high water, she said. The Storm Prediction Center had warned that bad weather would come to Tornado Alley, and more storms were possible later in the week, with flooding a major concern.
"People just really need to stay weather aware, have a plan and understand that severe storms are possible across portions of the southern Plains almost daily through Saturday," National Weather Service meteorologist Jonathan Kurtz said.
In Oklahoma, Grady County Emergency Management Director Dale Thompson said about 10 homes were destroyed in Amber and 25 were destroyed in Bridge Creek. As the storm moved to the east, forecasters declared a tornado emergency for Moore, where seven schoolchildren were among 24 people killed in a storm two years ago. When the first of the storms moved through Wednesday, school districts held their pupils in safe places. At Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City, people were twice evacuated into a tunnel outside the security zone. In Nebraska, 10 to 15 homes were damaged near Grand Island, and between Hardy and Ruskin, near the Kansas line.
At least nine tornadoes were reported in Kansas, the strongest of them in the sparsely populated north-central part of the state. That included a large tornado near the tiny town of Republic just south of the Nebraska state line, where some homes were damaged. In Harvey County, a tornado destroyed a hog barn and damaged trees, according to the National Weather Service.
Now, will the world use the same standards to determine how they feel about Hillary Clinton handled her emails?
State Dept. official: Hillary Clinton’s email practices ‘not acceptable. A senior State Department official testifying at the first congressional hearing focusing on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account for official business called such an arrangement “not acceptable” and said other employees have been warned against it.
“I think that the action we’ve taken in the course of recovering these emails have made it very clear what people’s responsibilities are with respect to recordkeeping,” Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I think the message is loud and clear that that is not acceptable.” Barr was less clear about whether the practice was clearly forbidden when Clinton served as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Clinton’s reliance on a personal email server put her records beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act — disclosure law journalists and members of the public rely on to obtain federal government records. “What really bothers me is when people plan in a premeditated and deliberate sort of way to avoid the Freedom of Information Act and federal government requirements requiring them to make public information accessible to the public,” Cornyn said. “We’re all familiar with news accounts of what happened with former Secretary Clinton.” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) called Clinton’s use of the private server “a bad decision” and said that any government employee who intentionally put records outside of official agency systems should be fired. Under questioning by Cornyn, Barr — the State Department’s chief FOIA officer — acknowledged that she had no idea that Clinton was using a personal server for all her work-related email. “I was not aware of that,” Barr said. Barr was vague about how the lack of access to those emails might have affected responses to FOIA requests during Clinton’s tenure. She suggested, though, that other records relating to Clinton were part of systems employees could search.
“Email is not the only way we capture information about what the secretary does. We have documents in the form of memos, briefings, agendas, etc.,” Barr said. “We have other archive systems … where we process all of the paper.” However, Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said it was certain Clinton’s use of the private account blocked disclosure of some records sought under FOIA or by members of Congress. “No doubt these failures undermine FOIA and have serious consequences for government oversight,” Grassley said. “If a record can’t be found, it can’t be disclosed.”
Hillary Rodham Clinton, right, and technology commentator Kara Swisher high-five during a keynote address. One Democratic senator at the hearing, Al Franken of Minnesota, came to Clinton’s defense by arguing that Congress shares some of the blame. He noted that it was not until October 2014, after Clinton left State, that a law was passed making clear that government employees had to forward emails sent or received on private accounts to official accounts.
“Congress has been slow to modernize and update federal law relating to government records and the Federal Records Act,” Franken said. “It strikes me that this is one of many instances in which federal law lags behind the technology. … In general this is an issue that Congress needs to grapple with.”
Last October, the State Department asked four former secretaries to return any official records — including emails — dating from their service at Foggy Bottom. In December, Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of emails she said included all work-related messages sent on her private account. She also said she had erased a similar quantity of emails her lawyers deemed private in nature. Barr said the State Department is now processing the work-related Clinton emails for release under FOIA, but Cornyn noted that the State Department is essentially taking Clinton’s word that she provided all her work-related emails.
“You don’t have any way of verifying you have all of the official emails she processed on her personal email account?” the Texas senator asked. “We have been told she has provided those to us,” Barr replied. Cornyn also said Clinton’s use of a private server could have allowed the emails to be compromised by hackers or foreign intelligence services. “Would that concern you?” the senator asked. “Perhaps,” replied Barr, a career Foreign Service officer and former U.S. Ambassador to Namibia. Other portions of the hearing focused on FOIA and recordkeeping practices across the government, with some senators marveling at the fact that the State Department and other agencies don’t routinely archive their official email.“How on Earth could we have a records management operation in one of the most important areas of government that seems to be so bush league?” Tillis asked. “This just does not happen in the private sector. … There are a lot of tools available to make this archiving almost as easy and seamless as possible.”
Associated Press General Counsel Karen Kaiser complained of a glacial pace of response to FOIA requests at State and other agencies. “Despite promises of greater transparency at the outset of this administration, most agencies are not abiding by their obligations,” Kaiser said. Nonrepsonsiveness is the norm and the reflex at most agencies is to withhold information, not to release it.” Asked about potential reforms, Barr said she’d like to see FOIA changed to give agencies more than the 20 business days in which the law says a request should be processed. “Maybe more time. Twenty days is very quick,” she said. “If we had more time to respond before we could be sued to get that information, that could be very helpful.” That proposal drew a sharply negative response from another transparency advocate, who said years-long waits for information at State remain routine.
Former President Bill Clinton speaks at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), on September 23, 2014 in New York City. The annual meeting, established in 2005 by President Clinton, convenes global leaders to discuss solutions to world problems. “The State Department has set up a system where if you don’t sue you could wait 7 years. … That’s an absurd situation,” said Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive. “She wants more time? She wants five years? … I’m sorry.” Blanton also called on State to create a “SWAT team” to focus on the issue of reconstructing Clinton’s emails and getting them released as quickly as possible. “You’ve got a former secretary running for president. There’s a lot of interest,” he said. “It’s not [an issue of] resources. It’s will. It’s leadership.”
The Judiciary panel’s ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), did not weigh in on Clinton’s email practices. However, he did deplore State’s overall record on FOIA. “State denied requests entirely almost 50 percent of the time,” he said. “I don’t know how anybody could find that acceptable.” Leahy also called on the Senate to advance legislation he has cosponsored with Cornyn to speed up the FOIA process and encourage release of more information. Such a bill passed the Senate late last year but died in the House. “There are no objections on the Democratic side to moving forward with this legislation,” Leahy said.
That hearing was very uncomfortable to watch. That "Barr" woman was trying to defend Hillary and just could not in so many ways. It was hard to watch. I think that most of the controversy is the transparency or lack there of that was happening after she was approached by it. And, who has not done dinner with the head of that country?
Kenneth Vogel from POLITICO reports also that Clinton Foundation backer lashes out at 'political assassination process'. "I used to respect the American media," billionaire Mo Ibrahim says. A Clinton Foundation supporter on Wednesday lashed out at media coverage of the organization and the Clintons — calling it “a political assassination process” — and urged the foundation to more forcefully defend itself.
“I was in the U.S. 10 days ago. I opened the newspaper and I was shocked to see these attacks on the foundation,” said telecom billionaire Mo Ibrahim, as he sat beside Bill Clinton during the opening session of the Clinton Global Initiative meeting here. “I used to respect the American media. And I was amazed because I started to watch the news and Fox and other guys and none of those people asked a question: What this foundation is doing actually,” said Ibrahim, to applause from the audience.
A Briton of Sudanese descent who has spoken at past Clinton Global Initiative events and whose daughter sits on its board, Ibrahim said, “What is wrong if Saudi Arabia gives money for a farm in Africa? What’s the big deal?”
Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign has been playing defense over unsubstantiated suggestions that her actions as secretary of state were influenced by donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The line of attack has gotten wider attention with the release of the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by conservative author Peter Schweizer. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has created a website called “The Briefing” to debunk the book’s allegations, and Bill Clinton on Wednesday, less than an hour after Ibrahim’s comments, pushed back against Schweizer’s allegations. “Even the guy that wrote the book, apparently, had to admit under questioning that he didn’t have a shred of evidence for this, he just sort of thought he’d throw it out there and see if it’d fly. And it won’t fly,” Clinton told CNN in an interview from Marrakech.
For some supporters of the foundation, including Ibrahim, the Clintons’ defense of the foundation’s work hasn’t been enough. Ibrahim wondered aloud why the foundation isn’t doing more to highlight its years of bringing together governments, corporations and wealthy individuals to improve education and alleviate poverty and hunger around the world. “I just could not understand. I didn’t see anybody from the foundation standing up,” he said during the opening panel Wednesday, turning to press Bill Clinton directly as three other panelists sat in silence. “You should have stood up and really took issue — what is this money for? What have you done with it? … What’s the problem?”
Clinton, appearing slightly uncomfortable, answered “I just work here, I don’t know,” prompting some nervous laughter from the audience. The former president suggested the media scrutiny was just politics. “You know, there is one set of rules for politics in America and another set for real life. And you just have to learn to deal with it.” But Ibrahim, apparently unwilling to let go of the subject, interrupted the president, protesting, “These were not tabloids. These were respectable newspapers.”
US President Barack Obama speaks at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundations 44th Annual Legislative Conference Phoenix Awards Dinner in Washington on September 27, 2014. The former president, in an effort to seize back control of the panel — which was entitled “Connecting People for Growth” — told Ibrahim “I understand. Thank you for saying that,” then pivoted back to ideas for empowering marginalized populations around the world. The CGI meeting kicked off Tuesday evening at a lavish palm-tree-lined golf resort with a cocktail reception featuring Moroccan hors d’oeuvres and a saxophonist serenading about 50 donors, non-profit leaders and dignitaries including Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal.
The two-day meeting marks the end of a nine-day trip to Africa during which Bill and Chelsea Clinton reviewed and participated in the work of the foundation — from helping fit children for hearing aids in Nairobi to talking with some of the 10,000 Kenyan children whose high school educations were funded through a foundation program.
After the panel on Wednesday, Ibrahim told reporters he thought the scrutiny of the foundation was “obviously” a result of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. “The problem is your country is so polarized,” he told POLITICO. While he said some scrutiny of the foundation was justified, he added, “I hope people ask the question also what the foundation is doing with its money. If Saudi money goes to help poor farmers in Tanzania, I mean, is that a wonderful thing?” Ibrahim said the lack of media focus on the foundation’s work “just begs the question was that fair scrutiny or is that a political assassination process?”
Asked if he thought it was the latter, Ibrahim declared “absolutely!”Ibrahim, who has appeared at previous CGI meetings but has no decision-making role at the foundation, also questioned the necessity of the Clinton Foundation’s decision to stop accepting most donations from most foreign governments during Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
“Personally, I disagree with that because as long as everything is declared — we know where the money is coming from and where it is going from, as long as no there are political favors that are given to people who are making donations,” he said. “Actually, they were not in the past in position to make any political favors. Of course, if Madam Hillary becomes the president, the situation would have to be different.”
An earlier version of the story incorrectly identified Ibrahim as a donor instead of a supporter.
Morning Papers: Election day in the UK. Election 2015: Millions begin casting their votes.
Millions of people have begun casting their votes in the United Kingdom general election. Polls opened at 07:00 BST at around 50,000 polling stations across the UK, which will remain open until 22:00. A total of 650 Westminster MPs will be elected, with about 50 million people registered to vote. As well as the general election, there are more than 9,000 council seats being contested across 279 English local authorities. Mayors will also be elected in Bedford, Copeland, Leicester, Mansfield, Middlesbrough and Torbay. In Bedfordshire, a referendum on a council tax increase is taking place. UKIP leader Nigel Farage, Labour leader Ed Miliband, Greens leader Natalie Bennett, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and Conservative leader David Cameron have already cast their votes. Results declared. The local votes taking place mean that nearly every voter in England - excluding London where there are no local elections - will be given at least two ballot papers when they enter polling stations. Some votes had been cast before Thursday through postal voting, which accounted for 15% of the total electorate at the 2010 general election, when the overall turnout was 65%. For the first time, people have been able to register to vote online.
Most polling stations are in schools, community centres and parish halls, but pubs, a launderette and a school bus will also be used. A handful of seats are expected to be declared by midnight, with the final results expected on Friday afternoon. Coverage. Polls close at 22:00 BST, but officials say anyone in a polling station queue at this time should be able to cast their vote. The BBC's main election programme, fronted by David Dimbleby, starts at 21:55 BST, with live coverage from 220 counts. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will have their own overnight programmes but will join Huw Edwards from 07:00 BST on 8 May. On the radio, a joint overnight broadcast by BBC Radio 4 and 5 live will be hosted by Jim Naughtie and Carolyn Quinn. Full coverage of the results as they come in will be on the BBC politics online live page and front page scorecard, with all the big breaking stories from around the country and analysis by correspondents.
Next, Whole Foods planning new chain targeting millennials after sales disappoint.
Whole Foods is planning to open a new chain of stores that courts millennials with lower prices as it faces intensifying competition as a purveyor of organic and natural products.
The company said Wednesday it's building a team to focus exclusively on the new concept and that it's already negotiating leases. Stores are expected to start opening next year, followed by a "fairly rapid expansion," it said. Walter Robb, co-CEO of Whole Foods, said the stores will also appeal to younger customers with a "modern, streamlined design, innovative technology and a curated selection." A name for the new chain wasn't disclosed; the Austin, Texas-based company said more details will be shared before Labor Day. The plans come as Whole Foods — which has more than 400 locations — has seen its sales growth slow as organic and natural foods become increasingly mainstream. That is pressuring the company to draw a sharper distinction between itself and competitors. Last year, for instance, it launched a program that ranks produce and flowers based on their environmental impact. At the same time, Whole Foods is trying to appeal to a broader audience by combatting its "Whole Paycheck" image and keeping prices down. But that push is expected to nibble away at its profit margins. The new chain tailored toward younger consumers could also pressure margins, given its focus on lower prices.
But during a conference call, Whole Foods co-founder and co-CEO John Mackey said it will broaden the company's reach with a new generation of people interested in natural foods. Mackey dismissed the suggestion that it might cannibalize sales at existing Whole Foods stores; he said he still thinks Whole Foods can triple its number of locations in the U.S. The company said it will not need a new distribution network for the new concept. For the three months ended April 12, Whole Foods said sales at established locations rose 3.6 percent, or 3.1 percent when excluding the benefit of the timing of Easter this year. The figure, a key metric of health, fell short of the 5.3 percent increase analysts expected, according to FactSet. For the current quarter so far, the figure is up 2.8 percent. Shares of Whole Foods Market Inc. dropped more than 11 percent to $42.40 after-hours. Total sales were $3.65 billion for its second fiscal quarter, also falling short of the $3.71 billion analysts expected, according to FactSet. Profit rose 11 percent to $158 million, or 44 cents per share. That was a penny more than expected.
Maybe they should just lower their prices.
NBC News reports that nearly 17 Million Americans Covered Under Obamacare. Nearly 17 million Americans got health insurance under the Affordable Care Act after the new insurance exchanges opened up, according to an independent analysis published Wednesday. The goal of the law, known widely as Obamacare, was to increase the number of Americans who have health insurance, put an end to industry practices such as cutting off care when it gets expensive, and to lower medical costs. It's worked to get more people covered, the Rand Corporation found in its study. Between September 2013, right before the exchanges first opened, and February of this year, 22.8 million people who did not have health insurance before got coverage, the Rand team reports in the journal Health Affairs. And 5.9 million lost coverage. That makes for a net gain of 16.9 million people. "The law has expanded coverage to more Americans using all parts of the health insurance system." But most didn't buy their insurance on the exchanges. Instead, they got insurance from their employers, just like the majority of Americans. The study is the first to look at "insurance transitions" -- when people drop one form of coverage for another.
"While the vast majority of those previously insured experienced no change in their source of coverage, 5.9 million people lost coverage over the period studied, and 24.6 million moved from one source of coverage to another," the researchers wrote in the journal Health Affairs. "The Affordable Care Act has greatly expanded health insurance coverage, but it has caused little change in the way most previously covered Americans are getting health insurance coverage," said Katherine Carman, an economist at RAND who led the study team, said in a statement. "The law has expanded coverage to more Americans using all parts of the health insurance system." Carman's team found that 11.2 million people bought health insurance on the exchanges -- the online marketplaces where people can buy private insurance coverage and apply for an often hefty federal subsidy. This backs up the federal government's estimate of 11.7 million. Another 12.6 million got Medicaid in the states that have opted to make the state-federal health insurance plan more widely available. About half of them had been covered before by some other insurance, while half were uninsured. In 2013, the Census Bureau estimated that more than 47 million Americans lacked health insurance coverage, or about 15 percent of the population. The Gallup Corporation and HHS both estimate that about 13 percent of American adults still lack health insurance coverage.
"While the vast majority of those previously insured experienced no change in their source of coverage, 5.9 million people lost coverage over the period studied, and 24.6 million moved from one source of coverage to another," the researchers wrote in the journal Health Affairs. "The Affordable Care Act has greatly expanded health insurance coverage, but it has caused little change in the way most previously covered Americans are getting health insurance coverage," said Katherine Carman, an economist at RAND who led the study team, said in a statement. "The law has expanded coverage to more Americans using all parts of the health insurance system." Carman's team found that 11.2 million people bought health insurance on the exchanges -- the online marketplaces where people can buy private insurance coverage and apply for an often hefty federal subsidy. This backs up the federal government's estimate of 11.7 million. Another 12.6 million got Medicaid in the states that have opted to make the state-federal health insurance plan more widely available. About half of them had been covered before by some other insurance, while half were uninsured. In 2013, the Census Bureau estimated that more than 47 million Americans lacked health insurance coverage, or about 15 percent of the population. The Gallup Corporation and HHS both estimate that about 13 percent of American adults still lack health insurance coverage.
The Obama administration released another piece of good news for its health care policies this week. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said a program meant to save money by coordinating patient care better generated more than $384 million in savings in its first two years of operation. The report from L&M Policy Research, LLC, found that Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations -- groups of providers who agree to be paid a lump sum to take care of a patient as opposed to charging for individual treatments and services -- saved Medicare about $300 per beneficiary per year during 2012 and 2013.
Former House Speaker Jim Wright dies at age 92. Former U.S. House Speaker Jim Wright, the longtime Texas Democrat who became the first House speaker in history to be driven out of office in midterm, has died at age 92. Texas Political Leaders, Lawmakers React To Jim Wright’s Death CBS Dallas Fort Worth. The World War II veteran and author, often praised for his eloquence and oratorical skills, was living in a nursing home when he died early Wednesday morning, according to the Harveson and Cole funeral home in Fort Worth. Funeral arrangements were pending.
Wright represented a Fort Worth-area congressional district for 34 years, beginning with his election in 1954. He was the House's Democratic majority leader for a decade, rising to the speakership in January 1987, to replace Tip O'Neill. Although three House speakers had resigned before Wright stepped down in 1989, they all served during the 19th century — and none had been under fire for breaking House ethics rules.
The House Ethics Committee investigated Wright's financial affairs for nearly a year at the prodding of a little-known Georgia congressman, Republican Newt Gingrich, who publicly branded Wright a "crook." The bipartisan committee charged Wright with 69 violations of House rules on reporting of gifts, accepting gifts from people with an interest in legislation, and limits on outside income. The committee accused Wright of scheming to evade limits on outside earnings by self-publishing a book, "Reflections of a Public Man," he then sold in bulk. He was also accused of improperly accepting $145,000 in gifts over 10 years from a Fort Worth developer. Wright said he hadn't violated any House rules and vowed to fight the charges. But his support among fellow Democrats quickly eroded. In a floor speech that ended with the announcement of his resignation on April 30, 1989, Wright called for an end to "mindless cannibalism" and decried what he called "this manic idea of a frenzy of feeding on other people's reputation." His detractors contended that Wright resisted acknowledging his ethically dubious actions.
The Wright episode proved to be a harbinger of the rising partisanship within the House and the personal attacks between House members that would mark the chamber for much of the last quarter-century. Critics said Wright helped fuel the ill will by generally ignoring Republicans as Democrats tended to House business. House Republicans chose Gingrich as their whip just months before Wright's resignation, and Gingrich later became speaker, beginning in 1995, until his own ethical lapses led to his departure. James Claude Wright Jr. was born in Fort Worth on Dec. 22, 1922, the son of a professional boxer-turned-tailor. After the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, he left college to enlist in the U.S. Army and flew combat missions in the South Pacific, earning the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Legion of Merit.
He served in the Texas House for one term, and at age 26 became mayor of Weatherford, his boyhood hometown. He served in that post for four years, from 1950 to 1954, before his first congressional victory. Wright was a disciple of House Speaker Sam Rayburn, a fellow Texan, and a confidant of another Texan, Lyndon B. Johnson, who served in the Senate during Wright's initial years in Congress before becoming vice president in 1961. Wright lost a special election to fill Johnson's Senate seat. "Jim Wright served at a time when political giants from Texas roamed Washington," Ben Barnes, a former Texas lieutenant governor and speaker of the Texas House, said Wednesday. "It was a very exciting political time when a young mayor from Weatherford arrived in Washington and began sitting at the feet of political giants like Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson, and learning their trade." Wright also was in the presidential motorcade on Nov. 22, 1963, when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. "To describe the depth of sadness that engulfed us that day defies vocabulary," he once said, recalling how the friendly mood of the Dallas crowds turned to "sheer terror and horror." In his long House career, Wright authored major legislation in several fields but was most proud of his efforts on behalf of a "pay-as-we-go" interstate highway system and water conservation.
He helped President Jimmy Carter fashion the 1978 Camp David agreement that led to peace between Israel and Egypt, and he played a pivotal role in bringing about a negotiated settlement in Central America that later led to the 1990 elections in Nicaragua in which the leftist Sandinista government lost. Like many Democrats, he had opposed President Ronald Reagan's emphasis on military pressure to fight Marxism there. On Wednesday, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement saying Wright "was a person of deep courage, brilliant eloquence and complete mastery of the legislative process." House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, praised the Texan for his "lifelong commitment" to public service.
In Texas, the 1979 Wright Amendment restricted direct commercial air travel from Love Field, near downtown Dallas, to nearby states. It was designed to foster growth at the new Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, but President George W. Bush signed legislation to repeal the amendment in 2006 and and loosen some flight restrictions. After leaving Congress, Wright spoke around the country, particularly at universities, and was a consultant for a petroleum company. He taught a popular political science course at Texas Christian University for nearly 20 years. In addition to writing a weekly column for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for a decade, he wrote several books. "Worth It All: My War for Peace" (1993) looked at the U.S.-Nicaraguan/Central America peace effort. In 1996, he wrote "Balance of Power: Presidents and Congress from the Era of McCarthy to the Age of Gingrich," and in 2005 he revisited the war years in "The Flying Circus: Pacific War — 1943 — as Seen Through a Bombsight." In 1991, Wright lost part of his tongue to cancer. He had more surgery in 1999 to remove and reconstruct parts of his jawbone and tongue when the cancer returned. Associated Press writer Douglass K. Daniel contributed to this report.
Anyway, for a show (Morning Joe) that considers this Deflategate a non story, we are still talking about it for some reason. "Mad Dog" Chris Russo is on the phone now talking about it not allowing anyone else to talk of course while now blaming Brady's wife, but still. Thank God that we are going to have a serious conversation on that show next. Plus, they are doing another segment on it withe panel and with Peter Alexander and Peter King.
Actually, Peter Alexander says it perfect, there are hundreds of pages about the investigation with deflategate and only 66 pages investigating the ray Rice hitting his wife in the face with a fist incident. That does say it all about the NFL and its priorities.
Actually, Peter Alexander says it perfect, there are hundreds of pages about the investigation with deflategate and only 66 pages investigating the ray Rice hitting his wife in the face with a fist incident. That does say it all about the NFL and its priorities.
Tom Perez is on the show talking about finding jobs in Baltimore.
So, here we are then. The General Election is upon us, and it’s time for us all to cast our vote.
To put my own decision-making process into proper perspective, let me take you on a brief tour of my voting history. I’ve been able to legally vote since the 1983 election, which came two months after my 18th birthday.
I voted then for Margaret Thatcher. I liked her no-nonsense style and her leadership during the Falklands War.
I voted for her again in 1987 because I had just joined The Sun as a show-business reporter and any staff member caught voting for Neil Kinnock would have been deemed ‘unfit for purpose’ by the paper’s virulently pro-Thatcher editor Kelvin MacKenzie and burned at the stake in a Wapping dungeon. I voted for John Major in 1992 because he seemed a very decent chap, an opinion I still hold to this day. And because Kelvin’s wrath if he discovered I’d voted for Kinnock this time would have made a dungeon stake-burning look like a Frozen convention. Then, in 1997, like many, I became infected with New Labour-itis.
I was, by then, an Editor myself, of the party’s preferred press organ, the Daily Mirror, and had become quite close to Tony Blair. The leaders of the three main parties, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, wouldn’t inspire me to open a crisp packet. None of these men seem to have a Scooby Doo what real Britain is like any more. They talk in exactly the same cliché-d platitude-ridden way that party leaders talked 30 years ago. Piers Morgan on Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, He seemed a breath of fresh air; a smart, articulate, very modern and inspiring young man with a clear vision for a ‘Cool Britannia’ moulded in the same image.
I voted for him again in 2001 because I believed he had delivered on most of his promise, and had demonstrably made Britain a better place to live. Those who reject this premise now are jaundiced by what came next. It’s easy to forget what a good Prime Minister Blair was for quite a long period of time. But then came Iraq. We fell out over the War – the Mirror vociferously opposed this senseless, unethical and illegal conflict before, during and after the 2003 invasion. I refused to vote for Blair in 2005 as a result. It was my small way of registering my protest at his war-mongering.
That was thus the one election in my eligible lifetime where I didn’t vote at all. Something I regretted from the moment the polling booths shut. Half my family have served in the military, risking their lives in conflicts from World War 2 and Northern Ireland to Iraq and Afghanistan. We all owe it to them and others who fight for our democratic freedoms to vote. To simply not bother, whether from a sense of protest or otherwise, is an unconscionable dereliction of duty, if not an act of outright cowardice. In the last election, in 2010, I voted for Gordon Brown. A thoroughly good, fiercely intelligent man – full declaration, he’s been a personal friend for two decades - who never got the credit he deserved for saving us from financial obliteration when the greedy banks all began collapsing like dominoes. In the last election, in 2010, I voted for Gordon Brown. A thoroughly good, fiercely intelligent man who never got the credit he deserved for saving us from financial obliteration when the greedy banks all began collapsing like dominoes. In the last election, in 2010, I voted for Gordon Brown. A thoroughly good, fiercely intelligent man who never got the credit he deserved for saving us from financial obliteration when the greedy banks all began collapsing like dominoes. When I look back at my voting pattern, I see one clear theme: leadership.
Or rather, my sense of who was the strongest leader, with the best strategy for improving Britain.
Politics is like anything in life. It’s only as strong as the people immersed in it. And frankly, I’ve never known such a paucity of it in the UK political arena. The leaders of the three main parties, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, wouldn’t inspire me to open a crisp packet. They’re three middle-class, middle-aged, well-heeled posh, white boys who all look, dress and sound the same. Yet Britain is now one of the most diverse, multi-cultural countries in the world. A fact of which we should be tremendously proud.
None of these men seem to have a Scooby Doo what real Britain is like any more. They talk in exactly the same cliché-d platitude-ridden way that party leaders talked 30 years ago.
I cringe when I watch Miliband struggle to ‘be normal’ and eat a simple bacon sandwich. Or erect some ridiculous Moses-style tablet with his vacuous, meaningless pledges. Or try and pretend that politically stabbing his brother in the front, back and scalp wasn’t the single greatest act of treachery Westminster has ever seen.
I groan at the sight of Cameron pulling up his sleeves and start shouting to try and prove he has passion when it’s clear he has about as much genuine passion in him as a neutered Aardvark. I also saw at first hand how rapidly and enthusiastically Cameron threw a close, trusted friend who helped get him elected (Andy Coulson) to the wolves and disowned him for pure, selfish political expediency. As with Miliband’s shocking treatment of his brother David, this proved Cameron’s a peculiarly soulless little weasel. Not a man you’d trust with the family silver. Clegg? I just look at him and feel a sense of utter derision. We all remember his adverts in 2010 promising an ‘end to broken promises’. And we all remember that the moment he grabbed a sniff of power in a shameless piece of political adultery with the Tories, he reneged on his own biggest promise – an end to tuition fees.
Clegg’s just as big a treacherous liar as the people he dared to scorn, which is why his Party will be decimated in this election. UKIP has been exposed for what it is, a nasty little Party for deluded Little Englanders. Its beer-swilling leader, Nigel Farage, will probably lose his bid to win a seat – a just reward for a disastrous campaign that proved to be almost as painful as his cricked back. When I heard him say that foreigners with HIV shouldn’t be wasting our NHS money, I realised Farage really is as vile as I thought. Good riddance.
The Greens’ leader Natalie Bennett is an Australian – never a good idea in an Ashes year - whose car-crash interviews have become a template in how not to speak in public.
How can we trust her to save the planet, when she can’t even string a sentence together?
The SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon is the only candidate who can justly lay claim to have had a good campaign. She’s undeniably feisty and impressive, has a sense of purpose and has destroyed Labour in Scotland with the same devastating success that William Wallace saw off the English at Stirling Bridge. But I couldn’t vote for Ms Sturgeon even if I wanted to – and I don’t, because she’d get rid of our nuclear deterrent, which would make us sitting ducks to any nuked-up terrorist group – as she’s not standing as an MP and there is no SNP candidate in my constituency of Kensington in West London. Which brings me back to my own vote.
The choice in Kensington is: Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green, UKIP, the Alliance for Green Socialism (sounds like something even Wolfie Smith would reject as too left-wing), the New Independent Centralists (I could never vote for any party whose name is incomprehensible even to Stephen Hawking) and an organisation called Cannabis is Safer Than Alcohol – a premise with which I happen to agree, but my mother would garotte me if I voted for them.
The final option is the Animal Welfare Party, which campaigns for animal rights, environment and health. In Kensington, it is a man called Professor Andrew Knight, pictured. After much deliberation, I’ve decided to vote for him and his party The final option is the Animal Welfare Party, which campaigns for animal rights, environment and health. In Kensington, it is a man called Professor Andrew Knight, pictured. After much deliberation, I’ve decided to vote for him and his party
The final option is the Animal Welfare Party, which campaigns for animal rights, environment and health.
It is only fielding four candidates in this election, all of them in London. In Kensington, it is a man called Professor Andrew Knight – one of the country’s most eminent vets who has dedicated 20 years of his life to improving the often gruesome lot of animals in our supposed ‘Nation of Animal Lovers’.
After much deliberation, I’ve decided to vote for him and his party.
‘What a cop out!’ I hear you cry.
But the whole point of a free and democratic election is that each individual is allowed to vote for the party that he or she genuinely believes will make the biggest, most beneficial difference to the country.
And by voting for the Animal Welfare Party, I know I will achieve two things.
The first is that it will make my late, fabulous and deeply beloved Grandmother very happy.
She loved animals more than most humans, and considered all politicians – as she did anyone in authority - to be a bunch of ‘po-faced little pocket Hitlers’ with the exception of Sir Winston Churchill, who of course defeated a real po-faced little pocket Hitler.
Second, I know that by writing this column and publicly declaring my vote, it will directly raise considerable much-needed awareness, and thus extra funding, for the AWP.
That will almost certainly mean more animal lives get saved and improved. So my vote will actually mean something, and make a genuine difference. Can any of us, hand on heart, after THIS dreary, tedious, lame and tortured election campaign, say the same thing about a vote for any of the main parties?
I wouldn’t trust Miliband, Cameron, Clegg, Farage, Sturgeon, Bennett, and whoever that nice Plaid Cymru lady is, to save a penalty in a one-foot goal, let alone the country.
Regardless of it all this week so far, Please Stay In Touch!
