Archive for 2013

THE FUTURE OF OBAMACARE AND ITS ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY:  36DD boobs.  Just like the UK’s National Health Service.  No joke.

OBAMACARE:  AMERICA’S SUPPOSITORY:

Obamacare pain in the butt

PUSH TO ADD DRAMA: This commercial for the European edition of the TNT cable channel is a lot of fun, but these days, as stars and veteran newsreaders are repeatedly given the network equivalent of a pistol and a bottle of whiskey on a regular basis, isn’t the real drama in television occurring behind the scenes, rather than in front of the cameras?

The late Gene Siskel was fond of saying, “I always ask myself, ‘Is the movie that I am watching as interesting as a documentary of the same actors having lunch together?” But as television enters into its Red Queen’s Race phase, and seeks to both cut costs and cut older stars (which both cuts costs and attempts to aim television towards more towards a younger Web-based demographic), perhaps Siskel’s Law could be amended to read, “Is the TV show I am watching as interesting as a documentary of the same people having lunch with the paranoid network brass?”

DOMA AND POTENTIAL FEDERALISM CHAOS:  If the Supreme Court invalidates the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on states’ rights (federalism) grounds– as many have urged it to do–there will be potential legal chaos, as same-sex married couples move from state-to-state.

If Congress doesn’t have the power to define “marriage” for purposes of federal statutes/benefits (which is what DOMA does), then leaving it solely to the States to define will result in a patchwork quilt effect, with a same-sex couple enjoying federal benefits (joint tax filing status; Social Security survivor’s benefits, etc.) while residing in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage (e.g., Massachusetts), but then losing those benefits if/when they move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage (e.g., Alabama).

I agree with Ed Whelan at NRO that this would be a very messy result.

WE HAVE TO PASS IT TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN IT, PART 5,321:  Another reason why the Affordable Care act isn’t going to be so “affordable” after all.  The IRS has issued regulations that will deny health insurance subsidies to many middle-income families.

Under the law, individuals are eligible to get a federal subsidy to help pay for health insurance when the cost of a policy exceeds 9.5% of income.  Under the proposed IRS regulations, subsidies will be available only if the cost of an individual health insurance policy exceeds 9.5% of income, not a family policy. As we all know, family policies are much more expensive than individual ones, often costing 3 times more.

The net effect of this regulation is that many Americans will not qualify for federal subsidies.  But of course they’re still mandated to buy a health insurance policy anyway (or pay a hefty tax penalty).  Nice.

SEBELIUS DOESN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT “INSURANCE” IS (AND DOESN’T REALLY CARE):  When asked about the impending 30%+ rise in health insurance premiums expected under Obamacare, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius nonchalantly responded:

“Some of these folks,” Sebelius said, referring to those hit by ObamaCare’s price spikes, “have very high catastrophic plans that don’t pay for anything unless you get hit by a bus. They’re really mortgage protection plans, not health insurance.”

As John Merline at IBD observes:

Sebelius has it exactly wrong. It’s precisely those catastrophic plans that are real insurance, which in case anyone has forgotten is supposed to protect against unforeseen costly events, not pay $20 doctor visits.

What Obama and company are trying to force down everyone’s throats isn’t insurance, it’s massively expensive prepaid health care.

Too bad for those who’d rather buy real insurance and spend their money on something else.

So let’s get this straight:  The woman in charge of implementing Obamacare:

(a) doesn’t really understand what “insurance” means and is designed to do; and
(b)  thinks a 30%+ premium hike is good because people will get more “stuff”

Ugh — another instance of progressive/liberal distortion of language and belief that “more is always better.”  Beam me up, Scotty.

AMERICANS MIGRATING TO RED STATES WITH MORE FREEDOM:   John Merline at IBD reports on a George Mason Mercatus Center report:

The “Freedom in the 50 States” study measured economic and personal freedom using a wide range of criteria, including tax rates, government spending and debt, regulatory burdens, and state laws covering land use, union organizing, gun control, education choice and more.

It found that the freest states tended to be conservative “red” states, while the least free were liberal “blue” states.

The freest state overall, the researchers concluded, was North Dakota, followed by South Dakota, Tennessee, New Hampshire and Oklahoma. The least free state by far was New York, followed by California, New Jersey, Hawaii and Rhode Island.

The study also compared its measures of economic and personal freedom to population shifts and income growth, and found that freer states tend to do better on both scores than those less free.

For example, it found a strong correlation between a state’s freedom ranking and migration, which means that Americans are gravitating toward states that have less-intrusive governments.

Freedom is a good thing.  Go figure.

FEDEX FOUNDER: I Couldn’t Start Company with Today’s Economy, Regulations.

Last month, a CNBC headlined noted, “Subway ‘Wouldn’t Exist’ If Started Today Due to Regulations: Founder Deluca.”

In 2011, Bernie Marcus said the same about Home Depot, which he founded.

Or to put it another way:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

“Or as some would say: ‘You didn’t build that,'” Glenn added last year when he quoted Robert Heinlein.

RIP DAVID DRUCKER, of the Amazon.com Car Lust blog.

QUESTION ASKED: “Why do the young vote for dependency—when the essence of youth is a quest for independence?”, Robert Tracinski asks at Real Clear Politics.

“The answer is dogma — a belief system that transcends reason,” Dennis Prager wrote last year, adding that “You cannot understand the Left if you do not understand that leftism is a religion. It is not God-based (some left-wing Christians’ and Jews’ claims notwithstanding), but otherwise it has every characteristic of a religion. The most blatant of those characteristics is dogma. People who believe in leftism have as many dogmas as the most fundamentalist Christian.”

WELL, THAT’S A RELIEF:

NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.

Sounds like pretty good news, based on this 2009 AP interview with the Obama administration’s resident Dr. Strangelove, “Science” “Czar” John Holdren:

The president’s new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth’s air.

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed.

One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

“It’s got to be looked at,” he said. “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.”

Well, perhaps now we do.

Of course, as fellow PJM columnist Zombie has noted, blocking out the sun is one of Holdren’s more benign schemes.