My first thought when I heard about the unanimous decision not to make a decision by SCOTUS was the fact that with an election coming that the idea of a government fatwa against a bunch of nuns might not play well in certain swing states drove this move. (There is a reason why the MSM doesn’t mention them in the context of this case)

but the more I thought about it something else hit  me.

I could be completely wrong here but I have a feeling that SCOTUS sending the Little sisters of the Poor case back down looking for compromise is all about a great conflict in the minds of some of those justices.

I think that while the religion of liberalism runs strong and produces an overwhelming pull I think that to force these nuns to violate their consciences might just be a bridge too far for some of those justices.

The irony here is that while Justice Scalia was alive this wasn’t an issue, if there was a conservative majority in favor of the nuns then a liberal Catholic could happily vote on the losing side knowing that said vote would not have any effect on the poor nuns.

But now instead of the cover of a meaningless vote, Justice Scalia has put them on a very uncomfortable spot and I strongly suspect that the many prayers being said both for the nuns and directed toward the guardian angels of the Justices in question were not in vain.

Conscience is an odd thing sometimes and we never quite know the workings of God.

I know some of you might think that a load of BS but that’s my gut.

 

 

 

by Steve and Timothy Imholt (mainly Steve, Tim was too angry, as he is an adult with autism and has an autistic son he pays out of pocket to cover.)

Do you remember the debate about why Obamacare was going to be so very good or so very evil (depending on who was hogging the microphone)? Regardless of where you fell on the scale from progressive to arch conservative, one area which had very little argument was over what healthcare should cover regarding children. Yes, there was argument about the role of government, about government over reach, about fiscal consequences, but about kids?

Nope, I don’t remember it.

I bet you don’t either.

I can remember the discussions about orphan drugs. I remember comments from both sides about catastrophic coverage. Even discussions about pre-existing conditions. These were things that most people thought the ACA would/should (depending on party affiliation) cover. Even the insurance companies and the Republicans in a last ditch effort to stop the ACA talked about other legislation, in place of the ACA, that would cover pre-existing and catastrophic situations.

But what they didn’t do was talk about situations that were fixable when the fix was expensive. Talk about donut holes. There is donut hole in coverage the size of the Holland Tunnel if you work for most companies. You see, the way things are today, some kinds of illnesses actually ARE covered by the ACA marketplace and public aid, but NOT through employer plans precisely because they are so expensive, and the employers had good lobbyists to get wording in there for an exemption for employer based plans.

Still others aren’t covered by the ACA market place OR the employer because get this… they are too expensive. It’s like finding a Ho Chi Minh tunnel at the bottom of a Florida sized sinkhole. You take the tunnel because you have to.

Is there a poster child for this hole? Autism.

You see, when you catch autism early it is treatable. But the treatment needs to be aggressive. And even better, its effects can be truly managed and even called cured. But the current costs are somewhere higher than $30,000 and in some cases even $50,000 per year for several years. Most employers would rather not have to deal with that kind of cost. And (please use a Gomer Pyle voice when reading this), Surprise, Surprise, Surpirse, state and federal laws say they don’t have to cover it.

Think about this. The employed person has to pay out of pocket to get his kids treated. That same person has to pay taxes that, in turn, pay for subsidized coverage for other people, some of whom don’t have a job, so that their kids can get this treatment because the ACA says that they can. So one guy gets to fork out the money twice, or if he can’t afford for his kids to get these treatments out of his own pocket has real problems.

That is assuming the guy who has a job can find a way to afford it. How many people have that kind of money leftover from the rest of their budget in their after tax salary? Especially with all the new tax rates, hikes in grocery store prices, and stagnant wages in the middle class.

It is a nutty situation, but that is just one prime example. We are SURE there are others. We will be on the lookout. Just follow bankruptcy filings and some will likely be found.

The ACA act itself provides a partial loophole as well. Turns out the Fed doesn’t always cover it because it’s a congenital condition. Those plans which do cover it are a lot more expensive. Currently, the only real option left for a family with an average income is for the kid to get put on public aid. On public aid, the kid can get covered. Except that like a Ho Chi Minh tunnel, the hole can collapse at any moment.

Now for those readers who don’t have to deal with this every day, getting on public aid is NOT like switching cable companies. You need to get qualified again, and again, and again. It takes a lot of effort by parents to pull it off. And each time they have to requalify, treatment gets impacted either because docs won’t accept it, or they can’t actually deliver until approved (again and again and again).

Remember that comment about catching it early, and being aggressive? Let’s be blunt. Being aggressive is not compatible with government paperwork.

So, as a country, we end up actually causing kids to not get the treatment they need, exactly when it would do the most good. All because companies didn’t want to have this really large cost, and the Feds on ACA didn’t want the premiums to go up even more than they are going up next year.

How did it get this way? From my perspective, it was because from the progressive standpoint, it had to be covered, so sticking it to the states was a good idea. (Actually for some of the progressives, anything that eventually will lead to a single payer system is a good thing, no matter how many kids get trampled in the meantime). But the conservatives aren’t off the hook either. Again, from my standpoint, allowing companies to exclude this kind of thing, is the direct equivalent of being Pontius Pilate, washing their hands. Why? Because for conservatives, anything that shows how bad the ACA is must be good, no matter how many kids are trampled.

From my perspective, political autism has eradicated public oughtism.

The saddest part of all? It’s not those kids knowing that they won’t be treated today. You see, none of them will notice it today because they are too young, and they really do have issues. And it probably won’t be those kids when they are grown, because at the speed they won’t get treatment, they will have challenges, at a much higher rate than they should. And the annual cost of that will be paid by everyone, just as the ineffectual treatment they will get because of a defective public aid system.

Yet keep sending these yahoos back to Washington, again, and again. Perhaps it’s the public who is more autistic than we would ever want to admit.

Yesterday when the Pope made remarks on Climate Change the Networks trumpeted it from the highest heights.

However this was not the only newsworthy thing he did:

Given the Obamacare mandate lawsuit and the President’s statement to the Pope concerning religious freedom, the fact that his government is suing them to force them to violate their faith is ironic, so the Pope’s visit would seem quite newsworthy.

Unless you are NBC

little sisters nbc

Or CBS

little sisters cbs

or MSNBC

little sisters msnbc

or CNN

little sisters cnn

ABC found it much more newsworthy than the others. They decided it was worth two whole sentences!

-NOTED: Yesterday, Pope Francis made an off-the-record visit to the Little Sisters of the Poor to show his support for their fight against the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act, ABC’s MEREDITH MCGRAW notes. In late August, the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Little Sisters of the Poor a short-term shelter from the mandate.

That is considerably less coverage that Twitchy managed to give it by 9:51 PM last night.

Given that the idea of the Pope making the republicans uncomfortable has been a constant theme of media coverage you would think that this symbolic move of support for Nuns being sued by the US government might be a tad more newsworthy.

One would almost think the MSM had an agenda when it comes to their coverage of the Pope and this particular Pontifical visit doesn’t fit it.

Update: Somehow Aleteia found time to cover it

The meeting, which was not on the pope’s publicly-released schedule of events, was held just hours after the pontiff met with President Obama at the White House. Father Lombardi did not say where, but he noted that the Little Sisters have a convent near the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, where Pope Francis celebrated a late afternoon Mass. It is likely that he visited the order just after celebrating the liturgy.

If ONLY the msm had access to the same resources as Aleteia does.
*******************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. If you think this is of value I ask you to kick in and help me reach my monthly goal $1834 a month or Twenty Two grand a year.

I’d appreciate it if you would hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what they’re good for.

Nicholas Angel: How could this be for the greater good?
Neighbourhood Watch Alliance: [all together] The Greater Good.
Nicholas Angel: Shut it!

Hot Fuzz 2007

Autism is a disorder, really a neurological condition that is typically diagnosed early in childhood that is characterized by huge difficulties in communication and forming relationships with other people. These challenges are due to the way the people with this condition use language and interpret abstract concepts.

My son is a four year old on the autism spectrum. He sits in the mild side, and has been in treatment for a while to treat his various developmental struggles. He is far from alone in these struggles. The autism spectrum is a wide range of severities of this disorder but it is said that more than 1 in 100 kids (more like 1 in 88) sits on the spectrum and requires some kind of treatment. These treatments can be shockingly costly.

Many of these treatments have been covered by our insurance company as every therapy he has been in was prescribed by a medical professional. He has been to neurologists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, all kinds of stuff. The co-pays alone would boggle your mind.

Then we come to today. He goes to one of his two regularly weekly scheduled speech therapy appointments that, until this week has been covered. The health care provider puts in an authorization request for treatment before his appointment (as is their normal procedure), and it is denied. That is strange, why now, why not a week ago?

Something strange is afoot at the Circle K you say?

Wait for it, this gets worse.

It turns out that under the Affordable Care Act they, according to the insurance company, they are required to only cover these types of therapies for “restorative reasons.” What is a restorative reason you ask? They can cover more but it is at their discretion. So, what company would do so if they don’t have to? Well certainly not this one.

Put another way if he had been in an accident and lost the ability to speak they would help, otherwise they won’t. Autistic kids are out of luck I guess, at least to go through a qualified private insurance covered speech therapist.

I was angry for a variety of reasons mostly because this is landing on us with no warning.

So, I asked, what is going on? When did this change?

Oh a letter was sent out 3 days ago? On Friday, and today is Tuesday? Nice, I guess I haven’t gotten or read that yet but ok.

I asked the question, what are these kids supposed to do? Have no shot in life? Medical professionals can prescribe a treatment and unless you can afford the $250-$400/week in cost out of pocket your kid is just out of luck?

No, that isn’t the case, the insurance company representative says. I can appeal (which they told me would in all likelihood be denied but I can do it), or I can go to the local school system department of special education.

So let’s review:

  • Covered last week not covered today
  • Costs of my policy go up year over year
  • Out of pocket just increased by at least $1000/month for a procedure prescribed by a medical professional (and that doesn’t include all the increases in copays elsewhere).
  • Coverage is shifting away from treating those with diagnosed disabilities, sort of.
  • Because of his age he might be covered merely by an already overspent public school system according to the insurance company (the school district disagrees).

Put another way the ACA through some convoluted process just shifted what should be a medical procedure onto the school system?

I guess they wanted the federal deficit numbers to look better for the kids they have to cover through the subsidies? Could that be the case? Surely not…No, they would never forget to tell the whole truth right?

Does that seem like how things are supposed to work?

It appears as though we are playing a shell game of which part of the government goes into debt to do the job it was design to do. Also this brings to mind what qualifications the school system has to do therapeutic treatments that should be done by someone trained specifically for this purpose. Or is the Department of Education just working its way into all aspects of our life so that it never gets cut back and only grows?

Whatever the reason is this monstrously large bill that was supposed to bring down costs is certainly having issues proving its worth beyond some kind of procedure requiring a band aid or the most cursory of treatment.

As an interesting PS to this story. I was on twitter venting about this and got pounded by several people from one of the two major political parties. One statement said, basically, I didn’t get it and that it was all for the “greater good.” Another insane defender of all things done by one party said that, essentially, not that long ago no one got anything.

The “no one got anything” statement is interesting because instead of fixing the problem by making sure everyone gets something we are stripping coverage on an obviously pre-existing condition and blaming corporate greed. I am my wits end with the partisan garbage. We no longer care about solving problems in this country merely about assigning blame. We do this while parents have to figure out how to help the very small children that we are supposed to be doing all of this to help. I will find a way to make sure Emmit gets what he needs, but it sure would be nice to be able to keep the coverage I liked, without that price going up yet again or coverage being reduced even further, but I can I can keep my doctor if I pay for it out of pocket while paying the insurance company to do less with more.

I guess we hoped, and we got change.

Tim I. PhD

-Author of the bestselling novel Forest of Assassins

Amazon.com Widgets

Update:  DTG:  “The Greater Good” Boy that argument sounds familiar:

*********************************************************************

The name niche market principle applies to DaTipJar.

For a Donald Trump the 22K that would cover my expenses for the and the extra $10K that would pay for the roof, car, floor kitchen and bathroom repairs that I had to put on plastic would be nothing and if my traffic was the size of a Drudge getting enough people to kick in to cover those bills would likely not be an issue.

But I have to take things as they are so if you like what you see here including my paid writers like Tim Imholt and have a little extra you can spare.  I’d appreciate it if you would hit DaTipJar





My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.

Choose a Subscription level
Beanie : $2.00 USD – weekly
Cap : $10.00 USD – monthly
Hat : $20.00 USD – monthly
Fedora : $25.00 USD – monthly
Grand Fedora : $100.00 USD – monthly

Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

If you could kick in I’d really appreciate it.

 

 

By Steve Eggleston

Unless you’ve been in a cave the last 2 days, you know that the Supreme Court once again rewrote what Justice Antonin Scalia has taken to calling SCOTUSCare to judicially extend tax subsidies for purchasing health insurance to the poor and middle class purchasing insurance on federally-established insurance exchanges. Much has been made over said subsidies, with the Congressional Republicans preemtively saying that had the letter of the law been applied and said subsidies on the federally-established exchanges been struck down, they would rush in to “temporarily” allow those subsidies to happen through 2017.

However, the case itself was never about the subsidies themselves, but rather the penalt…er…taxes that those subsidies allowed to be applied. Indeed, both the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts and the dissent written by Scalia admit that it is all about the tax, and in Roberts’ case, preserving what he transformed from a penalty to a tax.

As Scalia points out, the phrase “Exchange established by the State” appears innumerable times throughout the law. Indeed, it expressly defined the word “State” as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia”.

The goal of limiting the subsidies to those in states where the state set up the exchange rather than the federal government was to put political pressure on the states to be the proverbial bagmen for the federal government by offloading the cost of the exchanges from the federal government to the states. That the Democrats failed in their attempt to blackmail the states into becoming their bagmen (a wise fiscal decision, as those states that set up, or tried to set up, their own exchanges are finding to their peril) is not something for the IRS, or six Lawgivers-In-Black, to “correct”, especially when the Republicans said that they would do the “correcting” on at least a temporary basis.

The elimination of said subsidies in states with federally-established exchanges would, in a plain-text reading of the law, also eliminate the threat of the individual non-insurance tax for every couple, virtually every multi-member family, and most single people making between 100% and 400% of the poverty level in those states as the cost of the second-cheapest “silver” insurance plan would rise to above 8% of their income. Similarly, the two types of employer non-insurance tax are predicated on at least one “full-time” employee (that is, one who worked at least 130 hours in a given month) getting subsidized coverage, with the elimination of the subsidy eliminating the liability of those employers operating solely in those states.

Roberts, in defending his 2012 declaration that the individual tax is indeed a tax, admits that result would cause great financial harm to the overall SCOTUSCare scheme. Again, the role of a judge, even a Supreme Court Chief Justice, is not to save the other branches of federal government from bad financial bets through judicial rewrites of law, especially since Congressional Republicans vowed to do just that.

I guess we could count ourselves “fortunate” that my darker prediction of Roberts and his fellow Lawgivers-In-Black finding a way to keep the taxes fully-intact while striking down the subsidies didn’t happen. On the other hand, given the Congressional Republicans were going to fully-cave (though supposedly temporarily) on the issue of subsidies, I doubt that allowing them to keep the fig leaf of Kabuki Theatre Opposition will much matter. It will simply take a bit longer for them to do the expansion of SCOTUSCare that they previously did for Social Security (thrice) and Medicare.

I saw this tweet from the University of Colorado English Department this evening:

I didn’t realize today was Orwell’s birthday but the irony of that quote is astounding considering Justice Robert’s Old Yellowstain’s words here:

The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. (To cite just one, the Act creates three separate Section 1563s. See 124 Stat. 270, 911, 912.) Several features of the Act’s passage contributed to that unfortunate reality. Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through “the traditional legislative process.” Cannan, A Legislative History of the Affordable Care Act: How Legislative Procedure Shapes Legislative History, 105 L. Lib. J. 131, 163 (2013). And Congress passed much of the Act using a complicated budgetary procedure known as “reconciliation,” which limited opportunities for debate and amendment, and bypassed the Senate’s normal 60-vote filibuster requirement. Id., at 159–167. As a result, the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.

and this other Orwell quote on language:

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

applies here as well

Petitioners’ plain-meaning arguments are strong, but the Act’s context and structure compel the conclusion that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act.

  I think these examples confirm the truth of Justice Scalia’s dissent and confirms this tweet of mine in response to the Colorado English Department acknowledgement of Orwell:

I think George Orwell’s birthday deserves recognition but I suspect it would have been better for the country if they just sent flowers.

Update:  An old question answered:

Of course they could both be true depending of how she defined “diabolical”.

********************************************************************

If you like what you see and want to help support me & my magnificent seven please consider helping us make our annual goal.

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.

 

Our June Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Elizabeth The Anchoress Scalia Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life

Subscribe at $50 or more in and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

By A.P. Dillon

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina just announced a big rate hike. The reason?

Obamacare.

Grandfathered plans will see a double-digit hike around 13.5%, but those who have plans transitioned under Obamacare are going to have a coronary. Their rates will jump anywhere from 19.2% to 25.7%.

“Affordable HealthCare Act”. ‘A Family of four will see a reduction of $2500’.  Riiiiight. 

Triad Business Journal Reported:

Customers with so-called “transitional plans” — those plans purchased after the passage of the ACA and allowed to be continued by the Obama administration in 2013 — will see the highest jump, with an average increase of 19.2 percent.

WRAL also reported:

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina has asked state regulators for a 25.7 percent average rate increase on individual insurance plans purchased under the Affordable Care Act for 2016.

Gee, if only someone had warned the people this would happen. Oh wait.. someone did.

North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, who beat Obamacare supporting incumbant Kay Hagan in 2014,  issued a statement. In the statement, Tillis called for an ‘off-ramp’ from Obamacare:

“Today’s announcement that North Carolinians covered under the President’s healthcare law will be hit with more crushing premium rate increases is yet another confirmation that the Affordable Care Act is not affordable and is creating hardship for millions of families. Hardworking Americans deserve an off-ramp from ObamaCare to a patient-directed healthcare market that will control costs and give them more freedom to make their own healthcare decisions.”

These hikes are hitting in other states, not just North Carolina.

Tennessee has it worse, Blue Cross is spiking rates up to 36% next year. New Mexico is getting slammed with a 51% hike.  In Michigan, a hike by Blue Cross of over 11% is sought, amongst other insurers that seek up to a 37% increase.

Hawaii, whose Obamacare exchange is imploding, will see a huge hike – 49%.

Wall Street Journal reports hefty increases in multiple states, the average of which is 29% or more.  The Wall Street Journal also notes these hikes must be justified to the Obama administration.

Flashback to 2010: Feds fire warning shot to health insurers
Flashback to 2012: Insurance Industry Warns Of Higher Rates Due to Obamacare

Reminder, this past March, President Obama taunted those who criticized Obamacare. Gee, Mr. President, We Told You So.

 

DM7 small LL1885A.P. Dillon resides in the Triangle area of North Carolina and is the founder of LadyLiberty1885.com.
Her current and past writing can also be found at IJ Review, StopCommonCoreNC.org and Watchdog Wire NC.
Catch her on Twitter: @LadyLiberty1885

By Steve Eggleston

After the high-profile failures of Oregon’s and Massachusetts’ state-run health-care exchanges, and the near-failures of several other state-run exchanges this time last year, the proponents of ObamaCare were hoping that the blood-letting of the remaining state-run exchanges was at an end. Indeed, there hadn’t been any further failures. According to an editorial in The Orange County Register, that’s about to change, with the biggest domino, Covered California, poised to fail.

Up until this year, Covered California had been using $1.1 billion in federal grant money as its major source of money to finance its operations. There will be no more federal money going into Covered California, or any other state-run exchange, as that spigot was shut off on January 1. Meanwhile, in accordance with ObamaCare dictates that the exchanges be “self-sufficient”, California’s legislature has prohibited the use of general state funds on Covered California.

According to The Register, Covered California currently says it expects to lose $78 million in Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016). It seems people haven’t been signing up as expected. As of the original deadline for 2015 coverage, February 15, Covered California was 300,000 short of its planned goal. Two extensions of that deadline, to April 30, have not, at least so far, appeared to come close to closing that gap. According to a study by Alavare Health, Covered California had the 3rd-worst enrollment growth, at 1%, and the 4th-worst re-enrollment rate, 65%.

After looking over the presentation given to the Covered California board at its March meeting, I’d say that $78 million projected loss looks to be a bit “optimistic”. Under what it termed the “medium” scenario, the expected FY2016 loss is $104 million, which would bring the cash reserves down to $184 million. Supposedly expenditures will drop and revenues increase, but given the combination of the First Rule of Government Expenditures (spending never actually decreases) and the overly-optimistic nature of revenue projections, Covered California isn’t long for this world.

Of course, the Congressional “Republicans” have the “fix” – explicitly allow the federal exchange to offer subsidies if the Supreme Court strikes down the executive-based version. They claim it would be “temporary” and would come with the repeal of the individual and employer mandates regarding health insurance, but given their other hard turns to the left (including approving Loretta Lynch as Attorney General), it will neither be “temporary” nor come with the repeal of any mandates.

by Timothy Imholt

For anyone who has read my blog posts you know I have opinions that really don’t fit with either of the two major political parties. I sit in a zone that is forgotten about largely called the common sense zone, and there is no place for that in government.

I have the Uncle Steve Imholt who recently retired. He spent multiple decades as a software engineer before becoming a software engineering manager for very large programs. He is no stranger to figuring out budgets, costs, and weaving his way through government forms. I should point out that many of the software programs he managed were for government contracts. The point is, if he can’t navigate through the hurdles of a Healthcare exchange program, who can?!?!?!?!

I got this email from him recently that made me wonder how we are all going to survive the “Affordable” Care Act Rollout. I won’t render any opinion on this entire healthcare law other than to say two things. There are some aspects of my family’s life that were once covered that now aren’t. The other is that the Allied Forces defeated Hitler during World War 2 in much less time than it is taking to get this healthcare exchange fixed.

 

Here is the emails, titled: NOT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE COULD END UP KILLING ME.

 

It’s April 14, 2015 and I’m still struggling to finish my taxes. Why? Because I stopped working in September 2014.

I suppose you could call it retirement. But retirement wasn’t supposed to be so much like working.

You see, after working in IT for a long time. A good chunk of that was in health care, in both hospitals, and in the insurance side. So when 2014 hit with a ton of medical bills and retirement, I decided to itemize my health costs on my tax return. That meant I had to pull in a load of different documents from my company health savings account, the amounts I had to finance for my dentures, and about 19 different kinds of medical bills and payments. As I’m plowing through this I’m thinking, Thank God, I left COBRA in December and for 2015 only have Coventry obtained through the Healthcare.gov website.

You say so what? Well you’re going to hear the rest of the story.

I enrolled in the health coverage back in December to begin January 1. At that point, I wrote an email to the marketplace and attached a copy of my separation doc from employer saying I ended employment in September. In the email I said I believed my income would be about $70K for 2015 (a highly optimistic estimate). Using that figure the site came back with a really substantial subsidy. Still not sure how that happened, but what the heck.

In January I get a letter from the Health Insurance Marketplace saying I had not supplied sufficient documentation to justify I was earning only 70K. Actually I was unemployed until mid-February when I took a part time job because I needed to do something (retirement isn’t coming easy to me). I did the part time job for a couple of weeks but frankly, it was a lot more physical than I had originally thought. So I stopped working that and we (the wife and I) applied for early Social Security. So I used that information to send back an updated list with my pay stub from the part time job. I also indicated I thought I would be getting income as I needed from my IRA, to get me up to the 70K. This runaround eventually resulted in a long set of phone calls to the Marketplace to get my records updated – again.

I was told we were good to go.

Anyway, a week ago Friday, my wife gets notice from Social Security that her benefits would start in April for March (only the government can tell you in advance how much you are going to get for the past). Then Monday the 13th I get a call from the Social Security Admin asking why I wanted to delay getting my SS payments until April. I told the nice lady that I’d take them as soon as they could start them. While I may be dumb, I ain’t stupid.

So now I get to Tuesday. At 7PM on Tuesday I get an email from the Healthcare marketplace that I had failed to provide proper documentation on my income so I was no longer receiving the subsidy effective May 1. It was immediately followed into my in basket with an email stating that because of my recent application I could apply for benefits through June 15.

My initial reaction was HUH??? It was followed by lots of words, most of them unprintable, a few unintelligible.

I went and got a drink. Uncle Sam would have to wait until tomorrow for my taxes.

***

It’s now 3 AM on April 15, and I can’t sleep. So I get back up, finish plowing through the remainder of turbo tax and finally about 6:30 AM have them ready to e-file.

I go down, tell the wife, I think we are good to go on the taxes, but the health care was still a FUBAR.

I then make some coffee and spend a couple of minutes with my grandkids.

I decide it’s time to tackle the Health Insurance Marketplace emails. So I call the folks in London Kentucky. The support person after figuring out who I was, started looking through my files and decided that yes there was indeed a problem. She should get credit for keeping me from just starting to whimper in submission to the government.   As she worked to figure out what had happened, it dawned on her and I that the SS payments that my wife was going to get was the reason our coverage had gotten s rejected.

She basically said, this was going to happen all over again, when they received word I was going to receive social security.

I decided to let that problem wait. But I did log back into the health exchange to see that my new friend at the exchange had emailed me to say I had until June 1 to get everything fixed.

I breathed a sigh of relief.

On Thursday morning I got an email from TurboTax saying my tax return had been rejected.

I tell you that this whole thing about Obamacare cutting the cost of health care is true. I’ll be dead long before I should have been making it work.

 

Why did I want to air this publicly? I see no end of ads coming in the next election cycle about all the smooth rollout of this health insurance exchange system.

If this is smooth, I would hate to see bumpy.

 

Timothy Imholt is the author of several novels, including the newly released book THE FINAL WORLD WAR, written around the premise that Iran does get nuclear weapons and decides to use them in the fashion they have openly stated they wanted to.

As the last hours of tax day pass let me direct you to a pair of tax day piece for your approval.

First:  No Taxation without understanding

During the American Revolution, one of the major objections the colonists had was the taxation by the British crown without having any representation. While the problem of taxation without representation has been solved, it has been replaced by something almost as bad and nearly as destructive: taxation without understanding.

and there are costs for this ignorance

Being illiterate of the tax code has the same effect as actual illiteracy. It makes you dependent on others to tell you what is true and what is false. It allows you to be led. The more complicated the code the easier you are to manipulate. And that’s also why simplifying the tax code will be one of the hardest things to get done; too many people have a vested interest in keeping you in the dark.

Meanwhile with the passing of tax day 2015 we come a year closer to a tax day that Democrats dread:

the so called “Cadillac tax,” which is a 40 percent excise tax on high value health care plans. Like many parts of Obamacare, its implementation was put off to delay opposition.

It’s one of the last big parts of the Affordable Care Act to go into effect — lawmakers delayed the levy until 2018 in part because it is so controversial — but companies are wrestling with it now as they plan employee benefits. Some are already negotiating with unions over benefits that could spill into 2018.

And as my colleague here at Watchdog Arena,  Moe Lane, points out, a lot of people didn’t think it would ever see the light of day

You’ll want to check out both pieces (and Moe’s too.) not to mention the rest of the great stuff at Watchdog.org

When Moses had written down this law, he entrusted it to the levitical priests who carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel, giving them this order: “On the feast of Booths, at the prescribed time in the year of relaxation which comes at the end of every seven-year period, when all Israel goes to appear before the LORD, your God, in the place which he chooses, you shall read this law aloud in the presence of all Israel.

Assemble the people – men, women and children, as well as the aliens who live in your communities – that they may hear it and learn it, and so fear the LORD, your God, and carefully observe all the words of this law. Their children also, who do not know it yet, must hear it and learn it, that they too may fear the LORD, your God, as long as you live on the land which you will cross the Jordan to occupy.”

Deuteronomy 31 9-13

For a long time written law has been a significant part of human history.

The oldest (known) set of written laws known to man is the Code of Ur-Nammu from about the year 2100 BC.  A tablet containing these laws was first discovered in the mid 20th century.  Prior to that the Code of Hammurabi from several hundred years later was the oldest known recorded law in existence.

The concept of written law so that any person can understand is important.  A law written means that any person who is literate can see what the law actually says, and if a person is not literate a person can read them the law so that it can be known and understood as done by King Josiah :

The king now convened all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem.  He went up to the house of the LORD with all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests, the Levites, and all the people, great and small; and he had read aloud to them the entire text of the book of the covenant that had been found in the house of the LORD.  Standing at his post, the king made a covenant before the LORD to follow the LORD and to keep his commandments, decrees, and statutes with his whole heart and soul, thus observing the terms of the covenant written in this book.

2 Chronicles 34:29-31

 

Of course the whole idea of written law being a sign of justice and right as opposed to laws being changed on a whim by an unjust ruler is based on the quite logical idea that the law means what it actually says.

And that brings us to the Supreme Court and the hearing of Obamacare King v. Burwell.

The amazing thing about this case is that what the law ACTUALLY SAYS is not in dispute.  The law explicitly says that congress authorized subsidiaries for people in obamacare exchanges “established by the states”.

However we have justices in the United States Supreme Court actually arguing against interpreting the law based on what it says:

Justice Kagen:

“We look at the whole text. We don’t look at four words,”

Justice Sotomayor:

Sotomayor wondered why the four words that so bother the challengers did not appear more prominently in the law. She said it was like hiding “a huge thing in a mousetrap.”

Justice Ginsberg:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested the four words at issue were buried and “not in the body of the legislation where you would expect to find” them.

These justices, learned legal scholars,  actually made the case in the Supreme court that the explicit words of a law passed by congress and signed by the president should be ignored because they didn’t like where their appeared, or they weren’t significant enough.

This is insanity for three reasons:

The first being that such an interpretation presumes that the lawmakers in Washington DC, many of them lawyers themselves, would not have bothered to consult any lawyers during the drafting of this law, which was argued and debated over a long period of time.  Nancy Pelosi not withstanding,  the concept that lawyers wanted to be sure that the exchanges covered Federal exchanges  did not or could not think of inserting language to explicitly say so involves a willing suspension of disbelief.

The second being that proponents of the law explicitly argued at the time of its passage that the refusal to subsidise states without exchanges was a deliberate attempt to force states to create exchanges.  News coverage discussed the predicament for republican governors saying they would be forced to implement exchanges due to pressure within their state.

Huffington Post 2012:

Democrats, meanwhile, hope to use the law and Republican inflexibility to their advantage, betting that more Americans will embrace the law once it expands coverage. The calculus for voters, Democrats assume, will become more about the policy and less about a polarizing president.

“It shouldn’t be complicated at all,” said John Anzalone, an Obama pollster who assists Democrats in federal races across the country.

and let not forget Obamacare (and Romneycare) architect Jonathan Gruber explicitly stating on multiple occasions in public forums that this was the case:

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.

But while either of these are significant the real piece of insanity is as follows:

At least four justices of the US Supreme Court are apparently willing to rule that what a law explicitly says has no bearing on the implementation of the law itself.

Mind you they are not rejecting the wording of the law because they claim it is unconstitutional, they are rejecting the plain wording of a law for their own interpretation of it because they don’t like it.

Think just for a second what that means.

What is the point of having a written code of law if what the law says means nothing?  Why have written contracts?  Why bother?  If the plain text of a law can be thrown out not because of a constitutional issue but because an individual judge doesn’t like it then what does being “a nation of laws” mean?

And if the law doesn’t mean what it says?  Why obey it?

*************************************************

************************

Our March Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Stacy McCain’s book:  Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

Subscribe at $50 or more in March and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

 

All Tip Jar hits in March of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

Captain Darling:  So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshal Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.
General Melchett:  Filthy Hun weasels fighting|their dirty underhand war
Captain Darling:   !And, fortunately, one of our spies
 General Melchett:  Splendid fellows, brave heroes,|risking life and limb for Blighty.

Black Adder Goes Fourth General Hospital 1989

As I recall it was a mere week ago that the left was beside itself at Judge Roy Moore daring to defy federal courts claiming:

So the chief justice, never shy about taking on a fight, even a losing one, acted. He fired off a missive to state probate judges to refuse the marriage licenses to gay couples, saying they weren’t bound to adhere to the ruling of the federal judge who declared Alabama’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional.

this has led to an ethics complaint by the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center and sites on the left have been full of accusation and outrage

The Bottom line is the left is absolutely beside itself that Moore a state judge would defy a federal ruling and have made it clear that such a stance is not to be tolerated in a law-abiding America.

Unless of course it’s a ruling they don’t like:

But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Allah Pundit comments:

Once you tell the president it’s cool to ignore court rulings if it’s “important,” you might as well pass an enabling act and hand him supreme power. Forty-three percent of Democrats, an actual plurality, didn’t flinch, though. And the irony is, Obama’s own defenses of his power grabs aren’t much more sophisticated than that. His rationale for executive amnesty is that Congress is hopelessly gridlocked, the legal limbo that illegals find themselves in is intolerable, and we’ve now reached a point of crisis (a political crisis for the White House, not a policy crisis) that simply demands executive action. It’s crucially important that he act unilaterally and that he act now, even though he can’t quite explain — again, on policy terms — why that is. Just trust him. It’s important. And Democrats do, including and especially the core Democratic constituencies of women, young adults, and minorities.

This might seem a contradiction to most of us but as this is one of the advantages of a philosophy whose primary driver is ends justifying means.

My condolences for those of you who have turned 26 years old last year.

Alas for you the years of being able to stay on your parents health insurance have ended and guess what the penalties for being uninsured have increased.

the penalty fee for not having health insurance will vary on a person’s income. For 2014, the IRS had announced the penalty is 1 percent of taxable income or $95 person, pending which cost is higher based on the 2014 federal tax return. According to HealthCare.gov, the penalty for individuals is only for those earning more than $10,000 for income. The maximum penalty is the national average premium for the bronze plan.

And if you are turning 26 this year it will be even more fun

For the 2015 tax season, the penalty will increase to 2 percent of the yearly household income or $325 per person for the year. The IRS will expect the higher cost from the consumer. For families, the penalty is $325 per person, and $162.50 per child under 18 years old, although the maximum penalty per family will be $975.

Think of all the students i the humanities or in women’s studies who have not found anything even slightly resembling a job in their specialties suddenly forced to pay a huge tax to the government.

Think of all those democrat voters who suddenly introduced to the just deserts that they voted for at ages 19 and 23

And think of all those democrat candidates running for president in 2016 who will be promising to make sure they continue to pay those taxes.

This is an incredible gift to the GOP that takes place every single year and will continue to be gifted to the party until the day the law is repealed.

One might consider it unfair to Democrats who weren’t in congress when this was passed but remember oh party of Barack Obama you did this to yourselves.

Enjoy!  I know I will.

 

 

Bill Ayers at at 2012 Occupy Chicago rally
Bill Ayers at a 2012
Occupy Chicago rally

By John Ruberry

In David Horowitz’ pamphlet Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution, the onetime leftist remarked, “An SDS radical once wrote, ‘the issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.’  In other words, the cause-whether inner city blacks or women–is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause, which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution.”

Now the cause is police killing of blacks, but in reality the protests about the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner betray the longtime anti-police sentiments of the Left since the 1960s. But that is a subject for another blog post. Today I’m going to talk about the issue. 

The emergence of the New Left, which was kickstarted by the aforementioned Students for a Democratic Society, which Bill Ayers was a member of,  was part of the upheaval of the late 1960s.  The New Left eschewed the mainstream liberalism of Hubert Humphrey and the George Meany-led labor movement and its anti-communist bent. The Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement, and Women’s Liberation were the issues then. In the 1970s, the New Left’s call for action were the Watergate scandal  and the environment–in the 1980s it was the No Nukes and the Nuclear disarmament causes, in the ’90s and the 2000s, the Middle East wars were the issue.

In 2011, the openly leftist Occupy Wall Street movement emerged. Not surprisingly, it collapsed.

During this time span, I’m not sure when, but let’s say it was in 2000, through attrition, death mainly, the New Left supplanted the Old Left. It is they and liberal Generation Xers and Millenials who have followed them that are the driving force in the contemporary Democratic Party as well as the labor movement. Their true views, which I imagine they share with at most twenty percent of the electorate, are masked. But their goal is still the revolution. ObamaCare, a private-public mutation that represents the worst of both worlds, is nothing but a gateway to what the libs euphemistically call “single-payer health care,” that is, socialized medicine.

John "Lee" Ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry

When twenty percent of the economy is under government control, the rest of it will appear to the Left as low-hanging fruit.

But for now, the Left is looking to bolster its ranks by building up anti-police protests.

Until the next issue that won’t really be the issue comes along.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false,” but as “academic” or “practical,” “outworn” or “contemporary,” “conventional” or “ruthless.” Jargon, not argument, is your best ally

C.S. Lewis:  The Screwtape letters #1

Now that Jonathan Gruber has broken through the media firewall (in large part thanks to Jake Tapper who insists on acting like a reporter even when democrats are in power) our friends in the MSM have plenty of adjectives to describe what he is saying.

The favorite by far seems to be “stupid” not a day goes by when someone in the media talks about how stupid it is for him to have said these things, particularly on camera.

However in that wave of adjectives used to describe Professor Gruber in general and his words concerning the passing and implementation of Obamacare , there is one that we have not seen deployed, one that given his statement would be the first words out of people mouth.

The missing words?  “Liar” and “False”

Nobody wants to deal with that question for one simple reason, if Dr. Gruber is telling the truth (and he is) than a whole lot of Democrats and their media enablers were lying from the start.

Plus you’ll note that Dr. Gruber repeatedly spoke in front of audiences who were,  as a rule friendly to Obamacare, for years without being challenged on his veracity.

So expect more of the stupid chorus and anticipate more Universities, you know those places where ideas are supposedly freely exchanged, pulling them down.

I’m sure there is a valid academic reason for this and as soon as the media thinks one up they’ll give it.

There’s not a lot of money is saying uncomfortable truths, so I’d really appreciate it if you considered hitting DaTipJar

Final Goal 2014

Olimometer 2.52
If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

I was in my friend Rick Moran’s November 5th Election Night Extravaganza podcast, and among the many topics we discussed, I mentioned that I relocated from Princeton, NJ to Miami, FL a few months ago. Rick asked me why, and I gave the totally honest, simple answer, “Taxes.”

I went on to explain that at the time I sold it, I was paying $16,000 in annual real estate and school taxes on my house. You also add to that NJ’s income tax, and, in the long term, estate and inheritance taxes, and yes, the answer is, Taxes.

I was scheduled to be in Rick’s podcast for a half hour but stayed on, and, after my reply, Jazz Shaw diverted the conversation to the question, were taxes an issue in the last election? Jazz and the other guest seemed to agree they weren’t.

For people like myself, whose child(ren) are grown and out of the house, who have family in low-tax states, and whose occupations are not tied to a location due to freelancing, travel, or even retirement, taxes are an issue when we decide to vote with our feet. Not the only issue, but a very important issue.

For people whose children are in local public/private schools which they like, with relatives (especially elderly parents) nearby, and in full-time local jobs, local taxes are a penury they continue to endure, since the purpose of the tax-payed bureaucracies is to expand themselves in every way. To them, as it was with me for years, life starts – as the Rabbi in the punchline* said – “when the kids leave the house and the dog dies.”

According to this article, which looked at data from a study by the Tax Foundation (a Washington, DC-based taxpayer advocacy group)

Turns out when it comes to taxes, less is more. Here are some of the conclusions drawn from the study. Keep in mind, the latest data used is from 2010. In the years since, many states have raised or lowered their tax rates, but those changes aren’t reflected here:

  • Collectively, the nine states that have no personal income tax – Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming – gained $146.2 billion in AGI.
  • And collectively, the areas with the highest personal income tax – California, Hawaii, Oregon, Iowa, New Jersey, Vermont, New York, Maine, and Washington, DC – lost $107.4 billion AGI.
  • Looked at another way, the ten states* with the lowest per capita state and local tax burden netted an increase of $69.9 billion in AGI. The ten states** with the highest state and local tax burden per capita lost a whopping $139 billion in AGI.

But, were taxes really not an issue in the last election?

How about Obamacare? Was Obamare an issue in this election?

What are the headlines saying?

Democrats’ electoral disaster puts Obamacare in serious peril

The Supreme Court said Obamare is a tax, after all.

[* The joke goes,
A Catholic priest, a Protestant minister, and a Rabbi walk into a bar. The bartender asks, “when does life start?”
The priest says, “Life starts at conception.”
The minister says, “Life starts at birth.”
The Rabbi says, “Lie starts when the kids leave the house and the dog dies.”]

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog.

Barack Obama.com 2012 (via The Pundit press)

Jonathan Gruber: “Make No Mistake: The Affordable Care Act Is Based On Massachusetts’s Success,” And Several Of The Architects Of Romneycare Worked Closely With The Obama Administration “To Translate The Lessons From Massachusetts Onto The National Stage.” Jonathan Gruber, Professor of Economics at MIT wrote, “The core of the ACA is the same ‘three legged stool’ that was first developed in Massachusetts. Several of the architects of Massachusetts reform, including myself, worked closely with the Administration and Congress to translate the lessons from Massachusetts onto the national stage. And experts project that the ACA will have similar success, reducing the number of uninsured Americans by 30 million.” [Jonathan Gruber Op-Ed, The Republican on MassLive, 4/11/12]

Jon Gruber Who Helped Write Obamacare And The Massachusetts Health Care Law: “The Federal Reform Is Simply A More Ambitious Version Of The Massachusetts Reform.” “‘The federal reform is simply a more ambitious version of the Massachusetts reform,’ said Jon Gruber, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge who helped policy makers write both laws. ‘Within three years, we should see that the federal reform has covered the uninsured and stabilized the non-group market covering individuals who now face much higher premiums, Gruber said in a telephone interview.” [Bloomberg, 3/26/12]

Barack Obama Today via JWF:

“I just heard about this,” Obama said at a new conference, after wrapping up two days of meetings with world leaders here at the G-20 Summit. “The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed his opinion that I completely disagree with — it is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”

The Pundit Press notes that the entries above were scrubbed from the Obama web site, I’d be very curious as to when that scrubbing actually took place.

Stacey Lennox asks a great question:

If ONLY the MSM had decided to cover Gruber’s remarks, maybe the President would have seen it.

You know maybe if I was willing to lie about Obamacare I wouldn’t have to shake DaTipJar.

Olimometer 2.52
If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

Reagan statue, Dixon, IL
Reagan statue, Dixon, IL

By John Ruberry

Ten years after his passing, the legacy of Ronald Reagan still resonates.

The Gipper has had a phenomenal autumn.

Eight days before Election Day, the 50th anniversary of Reagan’s A Time for Choosing address arrived and it reacquainted Americans with the 40th president’s core values–and for younger voters it exposed the fallacies of liberalism.

“We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one,” Reagan said in his televised speech to support the candidacy of Barry Goldwater. “So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they’ve had almost 30 years of it—shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?”

Good points. Under President Obama, there are 14 million more food stamp recipients than there were during the George W. Bush presidency, despite what Democrats are calling an improved economy. Yet there is no call among liberals to lower the food stamp rolls. None of them are calling for the recipients of ObamaPhones to move on and sign up and pay for their own cell phone plans.

Last week was the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. While most of the credit for the collapse belongs to the German people, Reagan of course deserves a spot on the rostrum of victory. Two years prior, Reagan stood in front of the “wall of shame” and demanded, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Reagan believed in confronting the enemies of freedom. Obama, to my knowledge, has never used the word ‘enemy’ to describe hostile nations such as Iran, North Korea, or Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Berlin Wall segment, Eureka College
Berlin Wall segment, Eureka College, Illinois

There’s another landmark Reagan speech that deserves another look, his first inaugural address. “We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around,” he said.

Two weeks ago on Election Day–a majority of American voters said that’s just the way they want it.

Just last week, ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber chuckled about the “stupidity” of the American voter aiding in the passage of the unpopular bill. Reagan had something to say about such elitists in that same 1981 speech.

“From time to time,” Reagan remarked, “we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people.”  He continued, “Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”

Someone should ask Obama and Gruber that question.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Just after the election I made the point that the reason the Earned Sick Time ballot question (Question 4) passed while the Gas Tax (Question 1) & the bottle bill (Question 2) did not was because consumers didn’t see the costs of the former directly while they saw the costs of the latter.

Most voters didn’t understand what it means to supermarkets like Market Basket Restaurants like Singapore and even pizzeria’s like Espresso’s in fact all you might see if you are a bagger, a busboy or a pizza driver all you know is you’ve just got an hour of paid sicktime for every 30 hours you work up to a maximum of one paid 40 hour “sick” week a year. That’s likely why it passed by almost 400,000 votes.

Even when the supermarket inch up their prices the Restaurant cuts your hours and the pizza place decides not to hire the votes won’t make the connection that the cost of that effective 2-3% pay raise that you forced them to give is going to have to come from somewhere.

That disconnect from reality is why the same “highly educated” voters who repealed the onerous Gas tax can re-elect almost every single state senator and representative who voted to impose it upon them without batting an eyelash.

Thursday yet another Jonathan Gruber story appeared in a location other than the MSM which I suspect will give it a passing mention on Saturday for the sake of saying they mentioned it.

This post at Breitbart focused , as most such pieces have,  on the deception involved in the passage of Obamacare, but the video they embedded accidentally makes my question 4 point that is worth highlighting.

Gruber names John Kerry as one of the Heroes of Obamacare by shifting the argument from a tax on individuals insurance plans something impossible to a tax on “The Insurance Companies” (emphasis mine)

John Kerry said, No No. we’re not going to tax your health insurance we’re going to tax those evil insurance companies. Where going to impose a tax because if sell health insurance that’s too expensive we’re going to tax them and conveniently the tax rate will happen to be the marginal tax rate (inaudible). So basically it’s the same thing. We just tax the Insurance companies they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, so it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American Voter.

Do you see the lesson here? Gruber is kindly explaining the point I was making least week, a point that conservatives have been trying to get through to the american people for decades.

Higher taxes on business is simply a tax on consumers

In fact it’s even worse.  It’s almost certain that any price increase will be higher than the tax.

A while back a man in the delivery business explained it.  He needed to increase his margins but didn’t want to increase his base price, the gas price spike solved that problem for him.  As gas prices soared he had to make up the price so he added a “gas surcharge” and incorporated the margin increase into the surcharge.  Since the customers knew gas prices were going up they didn’t blink an eye at the high price and viola a hidden price increase.

Do you think for one moment that insurance companies forced to increase prices because of Obamacare didn’t do the same?

If I’m a conservative leader I use this clip from every single time the left tries to increase taxes on the “Evil [insert business here]” and use it to teach the uninformed voters two things.

1.  A Tax on business is a tax on you

2.  The left has been using you as a bunch of suckers for decades.

If Jonathan Gruber’s Obamacare speeches allow us to teach that lesson to the country maybe someday a GOP leader will give a speech calling him the hero of the tax reform movement.

**************************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

As president Obama prepares to create a unilateral amnesty for who choose to violate immigration law I say why stop there?

How many times have we read about people who are in prison for bogus gun charges or through tax laws that are used to go after people for political reasons.

There are OSHA fines slowing down business, FEMA fines, the EPA picking on people and businesses who dare to consider humans more important than turtles.

I’ll wager there are tens of thousands of laws that conservatives who have run afoul of laws pushed by liberals who could use a break but since we are doing amnesty how about a GOP president grant blanket Amnesty for any business that violates the rules of Obamacare.

Hey if amnesty is good enough for non-citizen breaking our laws then it’s certainly good enough for citizens oppressed by laws opposed by conservatives.

Honesty, you may ask?

Yes, honesty. MIT’s Jonathan Gruber has been quite explicit on his position:

Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.

As Alinsky said, “A good tactic is one your people enjoy,” and Gruber must relish calling Americans “too stupid” to understand Obamacare . . . otherwise, why would he keep repeating it (h/t THS)?

Gruber’s saying he now regrets his remarks. Like a child who’s sorry they got caught, Gruber may have been surprised over the brouhaha, and regrets having been so candid since, as Pete said,

Because he understood that the media would not reveal and/or report on it.

Indeed, there’s even a Pajama Boy-lookalike at the WaPo looking at “CONTEXT”, yes, all in caps:

Keith Hennessy, which Gruber might regard as one of the great unwashed, stupid American voters, looks at Dr. Gruber’s honesty about lying [note: Gruber has a PhD in economics, not an MD or DO in medicine]. Hennessy poses four questions

1. Is Dr. Gruber right that lack of transparency was a huge political advantage in enacting ObamaCare?
2. Do Dr. Gruber’s allies in Congress and the Obama White House agree that ObamaCare cross-subsidies were intentionally obscured to avoid politically unpopular votes?
3. Do they agree with the more general principle, that some large, explicit, and transparent subsidies will be unpopular, and that the only way to enact them is to hide and obscure them?
4. If so, is it ethical to hide and obscure large cross-subsidies (or large costs), in ObamaCare and elsewhere, so they can be enacted into law? Does the end of greater redistribution justify the means of obfuscation, of lying to voters?

Hennessy answers yes to the first three, no to the fourth, but more interesting is his list of nine areas

where American economic policy hides or obscures subsidies or costs, I believe intentionally.

And that‘s where the honesty dies.

Read Hennessy’s excellent post, of course. He also says (emphasis added),

Apparently Dr. Gruber thinks it’s OK to lie to American voters when his allies are in power to enact policies that he wants but the voters wouldn’t. He then says American voters are “stupid” both for not agreeing with his value choices and for not figuring out the deception.

Which brings me to Rich Weinstein, the Mild-Mannered Investment Adviser Who’s Humiliating the Administration Over Obamacare.

Gruber, the true voice of liberal arrogance, never learned that out there among the great unwashed, stupid American voters, some are actually paying attention.

For more Gruber fetidness, the Washington Free Beacon has a YouTube, if you can stand it.

P.S., Rich Weinstein, if you’re ever in Miami, I”ll buy you lunch at Versailles.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news and culture at Fausta’s Blog. Her major medical policy was cancelled under Obamacare since she did not have pediatric dental coverage, something she didn’t need when her child was growing up.

James Taylor: The chips are down. I want you to keep everything that Smith says out of all our newspapers and all the others you can line up in the state.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 1939

Dalek: Do not deviate.

Doctor Who Destiny of the Daleks 1979

A lot of bloggers have already written plenty of words on the newly released Gruber Video extolling the virtue of tricking voters.

But there is one aspect of his words that is, in my mind, more outrageous than anything else.

It’s not the suggestion that lawmakers were trying to hide the true meaning and costs of the law. After all lawmakers have spun or twisted law for the sake of personal power, pandering or achieving particular ends since before Daniel was tossed into the Lion’s den but something more subtle.  Take another look at the clip in question.

What is implicit is the idea that said deception would be entirely successful. Why? Because he understood that the media would not reveal and/or report on it.

There is a specific reason why the Bill of Rights after explicitly protecting freedom of speech specifically mentioned the freedom of the press, it’s because the press has the power to amplify that freedom far beyond the individual. While one might be able to downplay or defame an individual making a claim such tactics are considerably less effective when applying them to a press organization (although in fairness the administration has done their best when it comes to Fox News).

Because of that explicitly granted privilege the press has an obligation to honestly and accurately report the goings on of government in order that the people deciding who shall rule them can make their decision based on the merits.

That the press didn’t do their job in reporting on this deception is despicable but the fact that the administration and their allies took it as rote that said press act in that fashion should be a matter of personal disgrace to any person who claims the Constitutional protections of a journalist.

Postscript. That being said this report was almost a given:

Since the video was uploaded, the major English and Spanish broadcast networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, Univision, and Telemundo have chosen not to cover this devastating video on either their morning or evening newscasts.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Update: Dave Weigel’s piece about the fellow who first posted the clip makes my point:

Weinstein, back at home, was stunned at the reaction. Why did he keep finding Gruber gaffes? Why didn’t the press glom onto this stuff first?

“It’s terrifying that the guy in his mom’s basement is finding his stuff, and nobody else is,” he says. “I really do find this disturbing.”

No it’s the difference between making an effort to find something and making an effort to not find them.
Update 2: Glenn Reynolds answers the question from Dave Weigel’s piece on why the press didn’t glom onto this stuff:
If the Gruber video had come out before the election, would the GOP have picked up Virginia and New Hampshire? Quite possibly.
Democrats with Bylines indeed.
**************************************************************

There are less than 60 days to the year and to say things are tight financially around here is to say the Titanic had a bit of a leak.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

Reagan statue, Dixon, IL
Reagan statue, Dixon, IL

By John Ruberry

“This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”
Ronald Reagan, A Time for Choosing, 1964.

While the Republicans lost the 1964 presidential election, resoundingly, sixteen years later Reagan turned the tables on big government Democrats.

Today President Obama is at best blurring the lines between the federal government and the fifty states.  Healthcare is being fundamentally transformed by ObamaCare. The curriculum at public schools–remember, local schools are usually the most local of government bodies–is being altered by Common Core initiatives. Even what students eat at those schools is being dictated by the Obama administration.

Government in the United States is becoming more and more top-down, being run, in Reagan’s words, by a “little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol.”

Just like Europe. And oh do the liberals yearn for a government more like a European country.

But increasingly, Europeans are turning away from top-down government. Last week Scottish voters nearly voted for secession from the United Kingdom. Promises of more local control for Scots by London politicians may have swayed the outcome.

This time.USA-UK flags

There are movements all over the European Union that are demanding independence or more local control, including those in the Basque region, Catalonia, Corsica, South Tyrol, Wales, Brittany, and the Faeroe Islands. Belgium could split in two.

Two days ago Anne Appelbaum in the Washington Post took a look at how people across Europe view of their top-down governments.

The ideals of European unity that inspired a previous generation don’t move younger people who have no memory of what came before. At the same time, it is increasingly and notably strange that the wealthiest group of nations on Earth cannot create a policy to cope with the chaos rising on its southern and eastern borders — chaos that is, of course, the source of massive new immigration as well as economic instability. Instead, distant European Union institutions appear to fill their time making petty regulations. No wonder voters want to bring the decision-making “home.”

True, some of these local European movements are hyper-nationalist and yes, even racist. But like Reagan decades ago, Europeans are disdaining the so-called wisdom of those  experts who live far away and claim only they know what’s best for them.

As for Obama, he’s on the wrong side of history.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

************************

Olimometer 2.52

We remain 5 grand away from making our expenses for the year and a sold $1000 away from making them this month.

If you think the coverage and commentary we provide here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below to meet our annual expenses.

Consider the lineup you get In addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?

Beanie : $2.00USD – weekly
Cap : $10.00USD – monthly
Hat : $20.00USD – monthly

By Steve Eggleston

Earlier this week, former Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin declared that it was time to impeach Barack Obama. Predictably, the establishment Republicans immediately and unequivocably distanced themselves from the idea because they fear a repeat of 1998/1999, even as they continue to engineer a repeat of that electoral failure through a comprehensive disassociation from what they sure seem to consider their former base. Surprisingly, a fair number of said former base, conservatives, agree for the same reason.

I’m of a more-cynical mind. Given the Democrats have shown again and again they care not at all for the rule of law, there is no immediately positive point in pursuing the impeachment of Obama. However, that is not to say it shouldn’t be pursued. Eventually, there will be a non-Democrat President elected (do note I didn’t say Republican). If the Democrats have the majority in the House at any point in that administration, they will pursue impeachment because that will be deemed necessary under the “by any means necessary” principle…regardless of whether impeachment charges are pursued against Obama or not. It would be better to have on the record that no high crime or misdemeanor is convictable in the Senate.

Instead of the Constutionally-prescribed method of restraining a rogue President, House Speaker John Boehner (“R”-OH) is setting off on a very foolhardy plan to sue the President over non-enforcement of an existing law. It had been expected that the suit would be based on Obama’s refusal to enforce immigration law, but that might have resulted in the enforcement of the southwest border, and the Big Business cronies that took over the GOP want none of that. They’re planning on going after Obama on the non-enforcement of the employer health-insurance mandate that is part of PlaceboCare.

The likely suit may as well have the Chamber of Commerce as the lead plaintiff instead of the House GOP. Assuming the suit isn’t thrown out (which it will be; see below), should the plaintiffs be successful, said employer mandate will already be in effect on the Big Businesses that the Chamber repesents. A “victory” would only serve to crush the medium-sized businesses competitors to Big Business that are less able to absorb the cost, not remove the employer mandate for all businesses.

Of course, that presumes the suit wouldn’t be thrown out. It almost certainly will be tossed because the Republicans don’t have standing to sue. There is no case law stating that Congressmen have any standing to challenge the enforcement or non-enforcement of a law that does not directly affect said Congressman’s non-legislative interests. While there is limited case law saying that can be done by a state or local member of a legislative body, there are only two instances where said member has standing – (a) the member is part of the voting bloc that expressly and successfully blocked (or but for a tiebreaking procedure on a constitutional amendment, would have successfully blocked) enactment of a piece of legislation, yet provisions of that legislation were implemented anyway, or (b) the member is part of the voting block that voted for a duly-enacted piece of legislation, yet provisions of said legislation were not implemented.

The Republicans didn’t have the votes to stop the enactment of PlaceboCare in 2010, when both the original bill and the amending bill were before the House. So, what’s their argument? That given another bite at the apple, they would vote for PlaceboCare? Given their actions of the last 2 years, from the nomination of the godfather of PlaceboCare as their 2012 Presidential nominee to the quiet replacement of “repeal and replace ObamaCare” by “‘substantially’ fix ObamaCare”, one can reasonably conclude that the one-word message from the GOP to those who supported them because of their earlier stated opposition to PlaceboCare is the same one being given to those who supported the GOP because the party claimed to be conservative or because the party claimed to care about the rule of law instead of the rule of tyrants – “SUCKERS!”

Clara: Please tell me there’s a button you can press to fix this.
11th Doctor: Oh, yes. Big friendly button.
Clara: You’re lying.
11th Doctor: Yep.
Clara: To stop me freaking out?
11th Doctor: Is it working?
Clara: Not so much.

Doctor Who: Journey to the Centre of the Tardis 2013

As we get closer and closer to election day the number of problems for Democrats have gotten progressively (no pun intended) worse.

Yesterday’s Benghazi capture not withstanding the select committee will be meeting at the same time that Iraq following Ukraine, Syria & Egypt continues to implode, the Economy is in free fall while prices rise and suddenly our military bases have become the new home to tens of thousands of illegal immigrant children that the administration basically signaled to come on in.

But of all the things that are going to effect this election and those that follow, the biggest one is Obamacare, which is effecting elections that people didn’t expect such as:

Arkansas has long been cast as a red state model for implementing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, but it seems the political sands are shifting there as the practical and fiscal realities of the “private option” come into sharper focus.

Even in a state like Missouri where Obamacare has not yet been implemented by the legislature, the political consequences of a Republican trying to implement Obamacare are stark

Republicans are discovering working with democrats is a poisonous thing, which is bad but when people with policies from their employer start going away it will be worse for democrats across the board.

But it didn’t have to be, remember Ted Cruz last October offering to delay Obamacare for a year?  Let’s pretend the Democrats had given in on defunding Obamacare & delaying it a year. Imagine what the left’s playbook would be.

A. For a full year they could have played the “lives are at stake” card against the GOP.

B. When (and if) the web site blew up the media could have not only spun it as the normal initial glitches (as they tried to do) and blamed the GOP delay for messing it up.

C.  All during the Summer the media could have deflected other stories by talking about the potential benefits of Obamacare and blaming the GOP for forcing the administration delaying it.

D.  They could have used that delay blamed on the GOP to motivate their voters in a midterm where Democrat motivation would was already low.

E.  The Higher profile it would have given Ted Cruz which would have caused the GOP establishment to act even more punitively against the Tea Party to check them, exacerbating the party divisions.

and finally all the damage that is coming to low info voters would have been postponed to beyond the election including the state level exchange explosions.

Think for a moment democrats, how much would you have been willing to pay, how far would you have been willing to go to achieve even ONE of those things.

Poor democrats no big friendly button for you.

Sheriff of Nottingham: We’ll reorganize the entire lottery on a larger scale. I want hundreds more tokens made, my men-at-arms will help you sell them. Everyone will be force to buy at least one token. no one is to refuse.

The Adventures of Robin Hood The Lottery 1958

Indo Montoya:  You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The Princess Bride 1987

I spotted this piece out of Gallup that got me laughing:

Although the Obama administration is boasting higher-than-expected enrollment for the Affordable Care Act, Americans’ attitudes toward the healthcare law have changed only marginally since the open enrollment period ended for 2014. A steady 43% of Americans approve of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” while a majority continue to disapprove of it, roughly where sentiment was before the enrollment window officially closed on March 31.

It wasn’t in fact the piece or the statement that Obamacare remains unpopular it was the title of the piece:

Despite Enrollment Success, Healthcare Law Still Unpopular

Enrollment success?

This administration had years to gear up for Obamacare, they had the full power of the government behind them and a law that penalized people if they failed to sign up for their program and despite all this they managed to make their goal on the very last day of the deadline (and as time goes on the numbers seem more and more iffy).

Cripes thanks to Obamacare you have people driving to Mexico for healthcare:

Californians unhappy with their forced Obamacare related healthcare packages are finding a cheaper and more efficient way to see a doctor — high tail it to Mexico.

The growing trend among Californians finds citizens driving into Mexican towns like Tijuana, and seeing a doctor for as little as $15 out of pocket. While the Obama administration remains puzzled why so few Latinos are signing up for health insurance, the answer can be found just a few short miles away from the border.

As I’ve said before the only success that Obamacare can claim is supposedly selling tickets on the Titanic.

I’ll believe Obamacare is a success when vulnerable senators start running on it.

 

 

 

The headline at the New York times suggests that the Obama administration has cut the escape for business’ trying to avoid the costs of Obamacare:

Many employers had thought they could shift health costs to the government by sending their employees to a health insurance exchange with a tax-free contribution of cash to help pay premiums, but the Obama administration has squelched the idea in a new ruling. Such arrangements do not satisfy the health care law, the administration said, and employers may be subject to a tax penalty of $100 a day — or $36,500 a year — for each employee who goes into the individual marketplace.

But while some might crow over this change here is what it’s going to mean:

1. Pink slips

You don’t have to provide health insurance to people who do not work for you. If the government won’t allow companies to make a cost-effective decision they will cut those costs a different way and the cheapest and fastest is to cut people.

2. Part Timers:

If you can’t afford to lose people the next choice will be to reduce hours or create new part-time positions to replace the full-time ones that required insurance coverage.

3. Hiring Freezes:

If you work for a company on the edge of the Healthcare requirements and in an industry where part-time workers simply won’t do be prepared to do a lot more work with a lot less help. Your employer will not be bringing on any more people to give you a hand so you’re just going to have to do that work yourself.

4. Lawsuits:

An awful lot of companies have waivers from the rules of Obamacare, if your company competes with any of them a lawsuit will certainly be in order to obtain the same benefits that your competition gets.

These are only the things that have occurred to me, be assured that lawyers making $100+ an hour will be working night and day for companies looking to avoid those costs, and will find them.

All of these things will have political costs to Democrats, not just in 2014, but forever so remember my friends on the left, you did this to yourself.

Olimometer 2.52

This blog exists as a full-time endeavor thanks to your support. The only check I draw to pay for this coverage and all that is done is what you choose to provide.

For a full month I ask a fixed amount $1465. With under a week to go in may we are over $900 shy

If you think this coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting Datipjar below and help keep the bills paid.

Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 61 more subscribers  at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015.

Consider the lineup you get for this price, in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?

 

By John Ruberry

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” Ronald Reagan.

With the latest Obama White House outrage, the VA Waiting List scandal, it’s safe to declare an end of Obama-ism. And what is it? Obama-ism is the belief that government is the cure to all of society’s ailments.

I present the following evidence.

Obama stimulus "campaign" sign
Obama stimulus “campaign” sign

Obama’s $862 billion stimulus bill did not stimulate the economy, which remains still remains in the doldrums. Its only visible achievements were the plethora of stimulus “campaign” road signs alongside of road repaving projects. Say what you will of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, but new roads were built as a result of it.

In regards to energy, Obama’s renewable drive pumped millions of taxpayer dollars into green energy firms, many of the recipients of that cash later filed for bankruptcy. There is an energy boom in America–but it’s a oil one that occurred in spite of the president’s hostility to fossil fuels;  it’s happening in North Dakota’s Bakken Shale Formation.

The feds bailed out General Motors–and taxpayers lost $10 billion on the deal.

The president’s signature achievement, the eponymous ObamaCare, which wasn’t rolled out until his second term, has never been popular. Its kickoff was heralded by an enrollment website that was barely working for weeks and still has problems.

Which brings us back to the VA Waiting List scandal. At least forty veterans awaiting health care treatment in Phoenix died after being placed on a secret waiting list. There are at least seven other of these cruel lists.

Many Americans are probably asking themselves, “Is this what ObamaCare will become?”

Five-and-a-half-years after becoming president, Obama’s liberal policies have not been able to mend the economy, it can’t produce energy, and its health care record is well, sickening. Obama-ism, and I’m not at all surprised, is a failure.

I began with Reagan and I’ll end with wisdom from his first inaugural address: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

John Ruberry writes the Marathon Pundit blog.

Da Magnificent Seven's John Ruberry
Da Magnificent Seven’s
John Ruberry

By John Ruberry

For pretty much the entirety of his first term in office, President Obama blamed the stagnant economy on his predecessor, George W. Bush. Of course the Obama economy is still in the doldrums and I wouldn’t be surprised if it remained dormant until after he leaves office.

Obama’s biggest, ahem, achievement as president is ObamaCare. He repeatedly claimed, in what was later named the Lie of the Year, his  ObamaCare “You Can Keep Your Plan” promise.  Obama’s half-hearted explanation of that lie and the botched ObamaCare website rollout didn’t measure up to an apology, let alone an acceptance of blame.

Contrast Obama’s misbehavior with that of Chung Hong-won, the prime minister of South Korea who resigned Sunday over his government’s mishandling of this month’s deadly ferry disaster. Last fall Valdis Dombrovskis, the prime minister of Latvia, quit after a deadly supermarket roof collapse that killed 54 people in the capital city of Riga. These men accepted Harry S. Truman’s adage, “the buck stops here.”

Now I am not suggesting that Obama resign over his derelictions. Government instability is the biggest weakness of  parliamentary democracies. Besides, is America ready for President Joe Biden?

But strong leaders admit their failures and they don’t duck responsibility. Twice, however, Americans voted for a symbol rather than a head of state.

In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. And we are getting just that.

John Ruberry blogs at Marathon Pundit. 

*******************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

This blog exists as a full time endeavor thanks to your support.

The reporting, the commentary and the nine magnificent seven writers are all made possible because you, the reader choose to support it.

For a full month of all of what we provide ,we ask a fixed amount $1465, under $50 a day.

This month we are behind with 3 days to go we need $1042 for a full pay month. We can make our goal if we can get $350 per day We need 14 $25 Tip jar hits for each of the next four days to make that goal..

If you think the work we do here for the conservative movement is worth it, please consider hitting DaTipJar below.

Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 61 more subscribers  at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015.

Consider the lineup you get for this price, in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit) and Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Sunday  Linda Szugyi (No one of any import) on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?

 

Tomorrow you’ll get double the dose of DaTechGuy on DaRadio.

At 6 AM EST I’ll be heading down to my radio Alma Marta WCRN AM 830 to guest host Conservatively Speaking for Mike Wade for the first of two times this month (I’ll be hosting April 26th as well.

We’ll be talking the Sebelius effect vs the Obamacare effect in the six o’clock hour. In the Seven O’Clock hour Robert spencer will join us to talk Brandeis and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and in the 8 O’Clock Hour Bill Kristol will join me on the show to discuss his Thursday appearance on Morning Joe and the incredible hidden accomplishments of Hillary Clinton.

The call in number for Conservatively speaking is 508-438-0965 and you can listen live here.

Three hours late the scene shifts to Needham and the studios of WBNW AM 1120 for DaTechGuy on DaRadio.

Ray Hanna will join us in the 2nd hour to talk more Ayaan Hirsi Ali,

At 1:15 Rob Eno of Red Mass Group and old liberal friend Mike Hummell will join Ray and Joe on the panel to talk Hillary, Sebelius and Brandeis.

It all happens Noon till 2 PM EST Today on DaTechGuy on DaRadio. You can join the conversation by dialing in at 888-9-fedora (unless you are listening to the 11 PM replace or the 405 media replay during the week.

As always you have multiple options to hear the show via our online streams click the links to listen.

on FTR Radio online or on our terrestrial stations in the Money Matters Radio Network

WBNW Concord Ma 1120 AM FLAGSHIP

WPLM 1390 AM Plymouth MA

WESO 970 AM Southbridge MA

(and on the Terrestrial stations the replay is 11 PM EST tonight)

And if you miss all of these you can now catch our show on replayed on the 405 media out of California every Tuesday Noon EST (9 AM Pacific)

**********************************

Olimometer 2.52

It’s Friday and we’ve still 11 $25 tip jar hits from this weeks goal.

We don’t have the offices of an Ezra Klein or investors willing to pay millions to give the White House line.

All we have his good writers daily, original reporting and a mortgage that needs paying.

If you think the writing and reporting and the time and effort it takes to produce it is worthwhile please hit DaTipJar below so it can continue.

  Of course if you want to give a gift that will pay all year long consider subscribing.  If 61 of you hit Subscribe at $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year. For that you not only get my work seven days a week but consider the lineup you get for that price, including John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit) and Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Sunday  Linda Szugyi (No one of any import) on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

Chip Diller: Remain Calm all is well.

Animal House 1978

Yesterday the latest cards in the White House Obamacare propaganda war for election 2014 were played.

First came the removal of a useful idiot:

President Barack Obama will announce the resignation of Sebelius and the nomination of Burwell, currently the director of the Office of Management and Budget, at the White House this morning, officials said. Both women will attend.

While the specific timing of this caught people off guard, it was a given. Sebelius’ job was to be the face of every Obamacare disaster, to sit at those hearings, to lie through her teeth, to be, rather than the author, the image of disaster. She did it well but not anymore.

A Kathleen Sebelius still in office, able to be called before the House and able to add commercial ready footage to the incredible collection of video already compiled by every GOP campaign managers nationwide was simply unacceptable in an election year with the senate in danger.

So before the ad season began in earnest Secretary Sebelius had to go, her usefulness as a decoy at an end, replaced by a new face who can claim to have nothing to do with the debacle.

The second card played was the old Journo-list card via that old Journo-lister Ezra Klein.

The left has invested millions in Klein’s Vox. Yesterday was the day they would finally start to get some return on that investment:

Kathleen Sebelius is resigning because Obamacare has won

Klein spins on

Healthcare.gov isn’t perfect, but it works. We don’t yet know how many young people signed up in March, but it’s clear that there are enough of them to keep premiums stable in 2015. It’s clear that insurers are going to stick with the program in 2015, and compete hard to sign up next year’s wave of young, healthy applicants.

This is consistent with the White’s House meme of Obamacare as a success, it’s no different that the bogus 7.1 million number inflated according to Rand by only 3 million plus or the one day photo op sans any pol with skin in the game claiming mission accomplished (despite tens of millions still uninsured).

James Taranto’s natural reaction to such a statement not withstanding…

 

…the Klein template will be picked up by every other liberal outlet. Already as I type this Morning Joe table is quoting him. The whole “Obamacare conversation is over” will be the theme of every single morning show today and will be the coordinated message of each administration apologist on the Sunday shows this weekend.

That’s the Sebelious effect that the White House is trying to amply assuring the base the worm has turned. There is however one thing that the White House and the Sebelious effect can’t overcome, the Obamacare effect.

The costs of Obamacare are a reality, the cancelled policies, the higher prices people are paying for insurance, the tax penalties, the increased healthcare costs all actually exist. As time goes on they will continue to hit more and more of the voting public.

And while they have delayed the employer mandate till after the election, businesses planning for next year will continue to move as many people as possible off of full time work in preparation for the costs and penalties mandated by law continue to inch closer.

There is a reason why Senator Angus King is talking about aligning himself with the GOP post election and doing so in public and it’s not because Democrats can remain calm because all is well.

This is the Obamacare effect and no about of shuffling chairs on the Titanic can change the reality of it. The question is: Will the administration & their media allies be able to distract enough of their low information voters before they notice the ship talking in water and run for the lifeboats.

NOTE: This will be a topic tomorrow both on DaTechGuy on DaRadio (noon till 2 est) on the Money Matters Radio network and on Conservatively Speaking where I’ll be guest hosting 6-9 AM tomorrow morning.

Update: The Foundry reinforces my point concerning WH spin:

Some White House watchers noted at the time that Sebelius did not join Obama at the podium as he celebrated the surge in enrollment under the Affordable Care Act, nor did he recognize his Cabinet secretary.

The spin is now roses so Sebelius could not be in that picture.

Update 2:  Stacy makes an interesting point

Democrats and their media allies may be luring Republicans into a “War on Women” trap, setting up a situation in which a bunch of old white guys are seen attacking a female nominee.

This trap could best be avoided simply by calling attention to how the administration is deliberately setting up Burwell.

Having made one woman (Sebelius) a scapegoat for ObamaCare’s failures to date, now the White House disingenuously shoves another top female administration official into the political meat-grinder, hoping to obtain a short-term political benefit from Burwell’s public humiliation in Senate hearings. Considering how Hillary Clinton was scapegoated for the Benghazi massacre, Republicans might well ask, “Why does Obama always blame women for his failures?”

 

************************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

It’s Friday and we’ve still 11 $25 tip jar hits from this weeks goal.

We don’t have the offices of an Ezra Klein or investors willing to pay millions to give the White House line.

All we have his good writers daily, original reporting and a mortgage that needs paying.

If you think the writing and reporting and the time and effort it takes to produce it is worthwhile please hit DaTipJar below so it can continue.

  Of course if you want to give a gift that will pay all year long consider subscribing.  If 61 of you hit Subscribe at $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year. For that you not only get my work seven days a week but consider the lineup you get for that price, including John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit) and Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Sunday  Linda Szugyi (No one of any import) on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

A few days ago a said to a liberal foil of mine on twitter that I could re-write Obamacare in under three pages.  He challenged me to do,  so for every GOP candidate who has ever been asked:  “What would you replace Obamacare with?” here is my replacement Bill:

1a:  No person shall be denied the ability to purchase health insurance based on the existence of a pre-existing condition.

1b.  No person with a pre-existing condition shall be charged an insurance rate more that 20% above the average national rate insurance rate for a person of their age, weight gender and smoking history.

2a.  All people shall have the right to purchase an insurance product offered in any state that they would qualify for as if they lived in that state.

2b.  An insurance company selling a policy across state lines shall include a statement of any insurance regulations of the state of the purchaser that do not apply to them.  Such statement must be signed by the purchaser at the time of purchase.  A copy of this signed statement must be sent to the insurance commissioner of the state of the insured before any payment is collected from the insured.

2c.  In the case of any tort action involving the insured, the tort laws of the state where the insurance  company rather than the state of the purchaser shall apply.

3a.  An individual covered by a parent or guardian’s health plan as a minor shall be covered by said plan through age 25 provided that said person either resides with said parent or guardian, resides with a person covered by said parent or guardian, or a full time student at an accredited institution of higher learning.

3b.  An individual covered under a parent or guardian insurance plan after the age of 21 shall be subject to a surtax equal to 1% of the total federal tax owed by said person.

4a.  The federal government shall collect information as to the location of the greatest concentrations of uninsured individuals in the United States.   

4b.  The federal government shall open in the locations identified in section 4a a series of free clinics to be used a primary care locations for uninsured people.

4c.  As part of obtaining their initial medical or nursing license Doctors & Nurses shall make themselves available in a pool to staff said clinics.  A person assigned to such a clinic shall be required to practice there for a period not more than one year, after which they will have the option to leave or seek other employment.

4d.  For the period where a Doctor or Nurse  practices at the free clinics described in section 4b the federal government shall assume the payment of said person’s student loans.  If they do not hold student loans they shall be eligible for a tax credit equal 80% to the average annual student loan payment for a person in their major.

4e.  The remuneration of a Doctor, Nurse or a Nurse Practitioner at a clinic described in 4b shall, during the year of required service, be 75% of the average pay entry level pay of such a person in the state where the clinic resides.  If a Doctor, Nurse or Nurse Practitioner requests to and is allowed to remain at said clinic said cap will no longer apply

5.  The definition of all terms in this law shall be based on the 2014 edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

There you have it.  A bill that:

1.  takes care of pre-existing conditions

2.  Keeps the coverage for people to age 25 but gives an incentive for young adults to move on

3. Enables the free market while informing the consumer of risks.

4.  Provides tort reform without requiring any state to change their laws

5.  Doesn’t compel the purchase of a product.

6.  Provides actual primary care treatment at a fixed location for the uninsured subsidizing care rather than insurance.

7.  Doesn’t redefine common terms for the use of the law

8.  Does it in 520 words so you don’t have to pass it to find out what’s in it.

Now I’m not a lawyer so I’m sure some of the phraseology can be played with but I guarantee this would solve a lot of the problems that Obamacare claims to without much opportunity for either graft or political payoffs.

Which is why this law has as much of a chance of being passed as I have to be drafted as the GOP nominee for president in 2016.

**************************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

It’s Friday and our weekly goal sits at $106 out of $365 meaning April is looking to start as bad as February & March.

We are 11 $25 tip jar hitters away from making our weekly goal that we haven’t seen hide nor hair of since February.

Help us start Arpil strong, please hit DaTipJar below.

 

If 61 of you hit Subscribe at $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.

For that you not only get my work seven days a week but consider the lineup you get for that price, including John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit) and Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Sunday  Linda Szugyi (No one of any import) on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillion (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.


 

By A.P. Dillon

A few weeks back, I posted a letter from a man in North Carolina struggling with Obamacare. That article entitled, #Obamacare Coverage: “Play the game” (aka lie), detailed the problem that exists in qualifying for the subsidy based on earnings and related ramifications therein. In that letter and op-ed North Carolina citizen, Tim Wolhford, shared with me, one of the key bits was in order to for Obamacare to work for him, it required he might have to “play the game (aka lie).   Relevant section:

Under the ACA, the unemployed supposedly can buy an individual plan through the individual Healthcare Exchange. If they qualify, they get a “tax credit” (subsidy) for most or all of the cost of a Bronze Plan. At least, that’s the plan.
In my case, a Bronze Plan costs $387/month. The subsidy to pay for that is based either on what I made while I was working, or what I claim I’m gonna make in 2014, NOT on what I’m making right now — which is zero since my unemployment ran out. I made a good living in 2012 (the year they ask about), and I don’t anticipate being unemployed most of 2014 either.  Since I made more than $46,000 in 2012, and anticipate making at least that much in 2014, I get no subsidy. And of course, I can’t afford the $387/month.
I could just “play the game” (aka “lie”) and say that I’m only gonna make $11,500 in 2014, and get the full tax credit so I can afford the coverage. This is what my friends who are loyal ACA fans tell me I would do if I was “smart.”

Another problem Mr. Wolhford encountered was getting any kind of traction from Senator Kay Hagan.  Perhaps he should hit the next big Planned Parenthood/Emily’s List Abortion shin-dig in order to catch up with Senator Hagan. In his pursuit to get some relief and answers, Mr. Wolhford has sent me an update, which I am sharing below:

I just got off of the phone with a (Dem ACA fan) staffer for Rep. David Price.  

Gotta say, to the credit of him and his staff, at least they called me up to see if they could help.  That seems to be a lost art among Congressional offices these days.  For that I commend the staffer and Rep. Price.

1.  The staffer affirmed that I have 3 options:
– Go uninsured
– Use the “subsidy” knowing that I’ll probably have to pay it all back next April 15.
– Pay for my Bronze plan in its entirety, and file a claim for a credit next April 15.  

Obviously there are workability arguments with all three of those.

2.  The staffer claims that if NC simply would’ve expanded Medicaid then I wouldn’t have this issue.  This is the default position of ACA fans — it was a good plan until it got screwed over by the states, the GOP, whomever.  In looking at some “expansion” states to see if they did indeed close this hole.

3.  The staffer affirmed that, in the current Congressional climate, it was unlikely to have any meaningful legislation to pass corrections.  Which means that the *best* we can hope for is constant corrections / revisions coming from the White House.  She agreed that the idea of “there are no horror stories” is wrong.

4.  She asked me for concrete ideas to fix things.  Fair enough — I can’t claim that I liked the old system either, and that reforms weren’t needed, and quite frankly, a pox on the GOP for not addressing those while they had power.  So yes, that might be a good article — let’s put our heads together and think of ideas that *might* have a chance in hell to be passed that would fix things that don’t have the workability issues of ACA (or a national health care system).

Tim Wohlford

My response was along the lines of ‘good on Rep. Price’s office’ for not blowing him off as Senator Hagan’s had.

The item in number two is a nice example of the political slant and oversimplification on display over refusing the Medicaid expansion in North Carolina. Medicaid costs the NC taxpayers roughly $13 billion a year. That’s a lot of money that needs to have a strong accountability of where it is spent. Given what we know about Former Governor Perdue putting NC in the poor house debt-wise, accountability of the taxpayers dollar has come to the forefront.

Aside from Medicaid being a massive, costly expansion of an entitlement, Obamacare brought a new requirement into Medicaid that altered eligibility to include household income of up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line and added adults with no children into the mix. The Federal government would have paid the first three years of the expansion, but after that a minimum of 10 percent would come back on North Carolina to pay — remember, it already, as is, costs roughly $13 billion. The net effect of expanding Medicaid in NC would have been financially irresponsible given the massive debt Governor Perdue left behind with  her reckless mismanagement of unemployment insurance. Suggested reading: Medicaid Expansion: A Quick Primer

The section in number three saying there would be constant course corrections was like the bad joke of extension after extension coming out of the White House.  The last line in that same section should be bronzed and mailed to Harry Reid.

I’d like to thank Mr. Wohlford for this update and for sharing his story with me.

If you enjoyed this article, you should really check out other pieces written by Da Tech Guy’s Magnificent Seven writers and maybe hit that tip jar!

AP DillonA.P. Dillon (Lady Liberty 1885), is a Conservative minded wife and mother living in the Triangle area of North Carolina. A.P. Dillon founded the blog LadyLiberty1885.com in 2009. After the 2012 election, she added an Instapundit style blog called The ConMom Blog. Mrs. Dillon’s writing, in addition to Da Tech Guy’s Magnificent 7, can also be found at StopCommonCoreNC.org, WatchdogWireNC and WizBang. Non-political writing projects include science fiction novellas that are, as of yet, unpublished. Her current writing project is a children’s book series.

***************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

It’s April and our weekly goal of $365 currently sits at $104

We are 11 $25 tip jar hitters away from making our weekly goal to keep pace with the cost of my writers and the April Mortgage payment

The disasters of February & March are behind us and can’t be changed. All we can do is try to make April the month that things got back on track and the best way to do so is to start the month strong.

Help us start strong, please hit DaTipJar below.

 

If 61 of you hit Subscribe at $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.

Consider the lineup you get for that price, including John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit) and Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Sunday  Linda Szugyi (No one of any import) on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillion (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.


 

I’ve always known how to count

Tip O’Neill

Clive:  April 1912. This is a photo of the Daniels family of Southampton, and friend. This was taken the day before they were due to sail off for the New World on the Titanic, and for some unknown reason, they cancelled the trip and survived

Doctor Who Rose 2005

Yesterday the administration and their media allies was dancing on air.  They were able to announce that they had their seven million Obamacare folks (the methodology wasn’t quite made clear) .

 Jay Carney was delighted and the President and Vice President went before the American public yesterday afternoon and declared just how wonderful Obamacare was and how the GOP would have to look people with coverage in the eye and kick them off. The networks ate it up (even CNN found the time to break away from Flight 370 coverage long enough to join the Presidential victory lap).

But while the White House was all smiles and President Obama, Joe Biden and  Nancy Pelosi  took their bows there were a few people not in view of the cameras.

If you watch the live coverage you saw plenty of  people standing behind the president, you saw even more sitting in the crowd in front of him, but you know who was not either behind the president or in front of him?

Any Democrat running in a district that isn’t safe.  There were as hard to find as Leland Yee on CNN

James Carvelle’s column not withstanding , it doesn’t matter how much the White House crows or how much the media spins this or how many seats on the good ship Obamacare between two ferns managed to sell, Democrats who actually have something to lose in November know a boat is full of holes will still sink when it goes out to sea and they’re determined not to be on it..

Update: James Carville may not know how to count but Quinnipiac does

American voters oppose the Affordable Care Act 55 – 41 percent and 40 percent are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports Obamacare, while 27 percent are more likely and 31 percent say this will not affect their vote.

As I said to Maxine Baptiste this morning as she was crowing about Obamacare’s success


I’ll be waiting

***************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

It’s April and our weekly goal of $365 currently sits at $92

We are 11 $25 tip jar hitters away from making our weekly goal to keep pace with the cost of my writers and the April Mortgage payment

The disasters of February & March are behind us and can’t be changed. All we can do is try to make April the month that things got back on track and the best way to do so is to start the month strong.

Help us start strong, please hit DaTipJar below.

 

If 61 of you hit Subscribe at $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.

For that you not only get my work seven days a week but I think it’s a small price to pay for a lineup including  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit) and Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Sunday  Linda Szugyi (No one of any import) on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillion (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.


 

…and delayed Obamacare for a year back when he gave them the chance in October?

Then they would not be having to explain this:

The Obama administration has decided to give extra time to Americans who say that they are unable to enroll in health plans through the federal insurance marketplace by the March 31 deadline.

Federal officials confirmed Tuesday evening that all consumers who have begun to apply for coverage on HealthCare.gov, but who do not finish by Monday, will have until about mid-April to ask for an extension.

or this

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said the fault of struggling to sign up on the Obamacare exchanges didn’t lie with the faulty website, but with the people who weren’t “educated on how to use the Internet.”

Explaining the reasoning behind the latest Obamacare delay, Reid said too many people just didn’t know to use their computer properly and needed more time.

or this

“What the hell is this, a joke?” Boehner said at his weekly press conference.

He was responding to the administration’s announcement on Tuesday evening that people who had begun the process of signing up for insurance through the federal exchanges would have until mid-April to do so, instead of March 31.
The Speaker called the move “another deadline made meaningless,” adding it to a litany of unilateral changes that the administration has made to the law.

“This is part of a long-term pattern of this administration manipulating the law for its own convenience,” Boehner said. “It’s not hard to understand why the American people question this administration’s commitment to the rule of law.”

or this

I’ve got stories here. “Sebelius Says Mandate Won’t Be Delayed,”

and then another one: “On a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services spokeswoman Julie Bataille said even if officials wanted to, her agency didn’t have the authority to delay the enrollment deadline. ‘We have no plans to extend the open enrollment period,’ Bataille said.

“‘In fact, we don’t actually have the statutory authority to extend the open enrollment period in 2014.'” Sebelius says the mandate won’t be delayed; then Pfeiffer says it won’t be delayed. The spokesperson says, “[W]e don’t actually have the statutory authority to” do it, and yet last night they announced the delay.

But all of this is moot, the Democrats could not agree to the Ted Cruz delay of Obamacare because Health and Human SErvices Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made it absolutely clear to the Senate Finance Committee last November

People’s lives depend on this

Apparently Democrat senators with their seats in peril depending on help trump the lives of any ordinary people.

If all of this give you a feeling on Deja-vu. It should.

Exit question: How much do you think the campaigns of vulnerable Democrat Senators up for re-election in November who are scared to death by Fl-13, Nate Silver and Celinda Lake would have paid to have this issue off the table till late Oct?

Update:  I want to remind everyone what I wrote last October when the entire GOP was beating up on Cruz

Ted Cruz make a fight that the establishment shied away from. He took on a position for principle not popular with the media and public. He made that fight with lots of risks and little upside and pushed the media to the point where that media made absolutely sure that the entire country knew which party wanted to stop Obamacare and which party with one voice was dedicated to protecting Obamacare from repeal and or delay at all costs….

…right up until they weren’t….

…My exit question for Karl Rove & Company: How many millions of dollars from Big money donors would you have paid to put Democrats up for election in 2014 in such a spot?

Never forget GOP Senator Ted Cruz did this for you.

***********************************************

Olimometer 2.52

It’s Thursday and we are still over $800 shy of the mortgage with only five days to get it.

It can still be done but only if you if you hit DatipJar below

 

If 61 of you hit Subscribe at $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year and things will be a lot more like Alito and Kagan around here than Kennedy & Roberts reliable..


 

♫  And I’m one step ahead of the shoe shine
Two steps away from the county line
Just trying to keep my customers satisfied,
Satisfied.

  Keep the Customer Satisfied Simon & Garfunkel 1970

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Constitution of the United States Article 6 Paragraph 3

Yesterday MSNBC made clear where its customer base is as host Joy Reid discussed the Hobby Lobby case.  (emphasis mine)

The court that will decide includes six Catholic justices, some of whom have not been shy about asserting their religion. And all of this is taking place as the country becomes more secular. Even as the fervently religious fight even harder than ever to push creationism in taxpayer funded schools, and on science TV shows. And where the question of corporate personhood has gone from whether the railroad has to pay its taxes to whether corporations can be religious people. The question is do you trust this court to make those decisions?

Now there is an obvious point to make concerning such a statement that  Yid with Lid has already alluded to.  If the host of the show had substituted:  “Muslim”, Jewish”, “Black”, “Gay”,  “Atheist”, “Hispanic”, in place of “Catholic”  the outrage of the left would be incredible and the demand for both an apology and the firing of Ms. Reid would become a cause célèbre among all the right people but as her statement concerned Catholics, and more importantly believing catholics this shall not happen because as I’ve asserted before,  the common thread of the left is the targeting of Christianity.

What I find more interesting is the video itself.

That is a long speech to make and Ms. Reid is clearly reading from a teleprompter as she delivers it. That means it that speech was written, edited and loaded into the prompter for her to deliver. Since it makes assertions concerning court cases and had video of quotes from said cases would have gone through editors and producers before it began to roll on that screen for her to read.

Yet not a one of them suggested this might be a problem, Nobody figured it would offend their Catholic audience in general or Latino’s who are highly Catholic in particular. Nobody thought the clear mandate of the Constitution concerning religious tests would make them look foolish, nor did they think there was any chance of a backlash might cause trouble for a relatively new host.

Or if they considered any of those things, they decided the need to defend the White House would be more important to their audience than any such attack on religion.

And it’s worse than that.  The TV industry is constantly in flux, one day you have a job the next you don’t.  Yet not a person on that set figured that their boss, or an official at NBC or someone from the corporate ownership at Comcast might decide that mainstreaming a modern version of “know nothingism” on a major cable network under their name would cause any problems for their brands.

I suspect they will get more critique for having Jazz Shaw of Hotair on Morning Joe today then they will for the acts of Joy Reid yesterday.

This says something both about the culture at MSNBC,  the perception of its audience and their ownership and what it says is not good.

Update: Creative Minority Reports says:

I, as a Catholic, can honestly say no. I don’t trust this court at all. Sonia Sotomayor? Uhm no. Anthony Kennedy? Not exactly. I don’t trust John Roberts either.

Ed Morrissey:

It’s worth noting that the six Catholic justices on the Supreme Court rarely reach any kind of consensus, unless it is a consensus shared by the whole court. Reid bases her argument of religious bias on literally nothing at all but her own prejudice. One suspects it’s because of the desperation the Left has over the Hobby Lobby case and the HHS mandate in general, but it may just be that Reid has a bias against Catholics in public life apart from this, too.

**************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

It’s Tuesday and with 7 days left to the month I start the day $856 shy of the mortgage.

That means DaTipJar has to generate 122 a day for seven days to pay the bills in full.

We can do it but only you help. If there was ever a time for you to kick in if you were thinking of it, it’s now.

So I’m asking you to hit DaTipJar below if you possibly can.

 

With 61 more $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.

I would ask that you do subscribe by hitting the button below. If your finances allow it, consider choosing Hat level or better. A subscription comes not only with exclusive commentary, but on a weekly basis you will have the opportunity to get direct access to me by phone to provide feedback or suggestions to make sure this site is worthy of your financial support and patronage.


 

by Linda Szugyi

Following state and local politics is a pretty tough thing to do when you move every couple of years.  Since we don’t have cable and I rarely turn on the local channels, Florida’s 13th District special election slipped right by.  All I managed to do was make sure it wasn’t my district.  It was an important election, though.  At least until David Jolly won.  With a GOP victory, maybe it wasn’t so important after all.

Regardless of its value as a harbinger, the special election did spark enough interest in me to look up the prospects for my own district, Florida’s 14th.  The spark was quickly doused by the lack of information about those running against Democrat incumbent Kathy Castor.

Both Politics1 and US Elections list two Republican candidates, John Mark Grey and John Coney.  While most folks listed as candidates for office in the state of Florida in 2014 already have a website linked, neither of these gentlemen do.  I know, it’s still early in the year.  The primaries aren’t held until August.  Still, it’s frustrating when even the oddballs have websites up and running.

The news about my district is even more disheartening:  No Obstacles To Kathy Castor’s Progress.  And look at this map of House races, where Castor floats safely in her little blue boat amid a red sea.  She won reelection in 2012 with 70% of the vote.  The closest race she ran was in 2010, when she got 60% of the vote.

Is my district as hopeless as it seems?  Since Kathy Castor continues to wear her support of Obamacare as a badge of honor, she should be vulnerable.  For heaven’s sake, she continues to display on her congressional website Politifact’s 2013 Lie of the Year:  If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.  (Hat tip.)

Kathy Castor

Are either of the listed Republicans serious candidates?  Will more candidates surface?

By the way, another special election will be held on June 24th, in Florida’s 19th District.  Will it get as much attention as the 13th District did?

We’ll see.  Stay tuned.

I’m one of Da Tech Guy’s Magnificent Seven guest writers.  If you like our writing, please consider subscribing to Da Tech Guy’s Blog so that he may continue to host The Magnificent Seven.  Thanks.

**********************************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

It’s Monday and with 8 days left to the month I am still over $850 shy of the Mortgage that’s due in a week.

That’s why you don’t see the weekly goal this morning, because if I make that goal I’ll still be nearly $700 shy to pay the bills this month.

We had a good start yesterday but I still need a minimum of four $25 tip jar hitters every day for the next nine days simply to come up a mere $100 short.

It is still possible to make our goal but only you help. If there was ever a time for you to kick in if you were thinking of it, it’s now.

So I’m asking you to hit DaTipJar below if you possibly can.

 

With 61 more $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.

I would ask that you do subscribe by hitting the button below. If your finances allow it, consider choosing Hat level or better. A subscription comes not only with exclusive commentary, but on a weekly basis you will have the opportunity to get direct access to me by phone to provide feedback or suggestions to make sure this site is worthy of your financial support and patronage.


 

by baldilocks

For an administration that’s quick to cry racism where black people are concerned, this one is certainly oblivious to stereotypes of other groups.

President Obama on Tuesday sought to assure legal immigrants that they can sign up for ObamaCare without worrying that “the immigration people” will come for family members who are in the country illegally.

In an interview with Univision Deportes, a Spanish-language sports radio show, Obama said immigration officials won’t have access to the personal information that consumers provide when signing up for healthcare on the new exchanges.

“Well, the main thing for people to know is that any information you get, you know, asked with respect to buying insurance, does not have anything to do with … the rules governing immigration,” Obama said. “And you know, you can qualify if you’re a legal resident, if you are … legally present in the United States. You know, if you have a family where some people are citizens or legally here, and others are not documented, the immigration people will never get that information.”

“You know, you will qualify, you know, regardless of what your family’s status is,” Obama said on Tuesday. “So, you know, people should not hold back just because they’re in a mixed-family status.”

The White House has said there are 10.2 million uninsured Hispanics eligible for ObamaCare in the country, and about 8.1 million are likely eligible for tax credits. Hispanics have the highest rate of uninsured of any ethnic group in the country.

More truthful President Obama:

“Come on, people with Spanish last names, just come on and register for Obamacare! I promise I won’t hurt ya. I won’t even toss out your illegal alien relatives. And, we all know of course, that all you people have at least one illegal alien relative.

Baldilocks mini

“Sorry for speaking English.”

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2009; the second edition in 2012. Her new novel, Arlen’s Harem, is due in early 2014. Help her fund it and help keep her blog alive!

___________________________

If you become one of the 55 3/4 subscribers @ at $20 a month are necessary to secure the cost of DaMagnificent Seven & my monthly mortgage on a permanent basis but do so at the $25 level you can receive one of several Exclusive Original Chris Muir high Res Graphics of the original 

members of DaTechGuy’s Magnificent Seven Gang. like the one on the right

Please specify which of the eight hi res (including myself you wish to receive) Subscribe at $50 a month and receive all eight. Subscribe at $100 a month and get all 8 wanted posters high res graphics plug the high res version of all of us exclusively created for subscribers of DaTechGuy blog by Chris Muir himself!monthlyGrand Fedora : $100.00USD – monthlyBeanie : $2.00USD – weeklyCap : $10.00USD – monthlyHat : $20.00USD – monthlyFedora : $25.00USD –

 

A lot of us talk about the problems of Obamacare but nobody knows it better than a person like Shona Holmes who has actually lived it:

her words remind me of part of Mark Steyn’s speech at NLRC 2014 concerning Obamacave vs the Canadian System it has all the bad parts of the system without any of the benefits.

************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

It’s Monday and we’re $47 toward our goal of $365 to pay the mortgage and the writer.

After three straight weeks missing our goal we need your help

Without 13 $25 tip jar hits we will have no prospect of making mortgage this month.

We’ve done a lot in the last 10 days from CPAC to NLRC. but it can’t be done without you.

 

With 61 more $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.

I would ask that you do subscribe by hitting the button below.  If your finances allow it, consider choosing Hat level or better.  A subscription comes not only with exclusive commentary, but on a weekly basis you will have the opportunity to get direct access to me by phone to provide feedback or suggestions to make sure this site is worthy of your financial support and patronage.


 

By A.P. Dillon

My fellow Magnificent 7 writer, Linda Szugyi, started the week at Da Tech Guy with an article called Peas in a pod which briefly talked about how spam filters have saved all of our inboxes from blowing up and then moved into one that didn’t get caught in the spam filter: An Obamacare advertisement.

The Peas in a pod article goes on to talk about how the ad is a scam and well, so is Obamacare. This is the perfect segue for my article today, which is about yet another Obamacare scam problem. That problem is job changes, tax implications and how Obamacare and the IRS handle that. Or rather, how the IRS and Obamacare don’t handle it.

Reader Tim Wohlford emailed me with his story and I now present it to you. Wohlford is a North Carolina citizen who described himself to me as having sold health insurance at one time and “Donated a total of $1 in my lifetime to the GOP, but did contribute in the MI-7 Congressional race to defeat a Dem who voted for ACA.” Wohlford is from Morrisville, North Carolina — a suburb of the Research Triangle Park area near Raleigh.

Wohlford has an op-ed he shared with me that is posted at HPE.com where he describes the hole in coverage that is likely afflicting many people like himself. The letter is short, so I am posting it here in full with his permission. Emphasis added is mine:

One of the biggest reasons why people don’t have health insurance is due to job change. Either the person loses coverage because they are recently unemployed, or they’re waiting for the new coverage to kick in. Around 30 percent of the estimated 45 million uninsured are in this situation. So, you’d think that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would’ve taken great pains to address this situation. Sadly, it made matters far worse.
The official program for recently terminated employees to keep their coverage is called “COBRA.” However, many COBRA bills are for $400/month or more, and let’s face it — if you’re suddenly living off of unemployment insurance, you’re not likely to make COBRA payments.
Under the ACA, the unemployed supposedly can buy an individual plan through the individual Healthcare Exchange. If they qualify, they get a “tax credit” (subsidy) for most or all of the cost of a Bronze Plan. At least, that’s the plan.
In my case, a Bronze Plan costs $387/month. The subsidy to pay for that is based either on what I made while I was working, or what I claim I’m gonna make in 2014, NOT on what I’m making right now — which is zero since my unemployment ran out. I made a good living in 2012 (the year they ask about), and I don’t anticipate being unemployed most of 2014 either.  Since I made more than $46,000 in 2012, and anticipate making at least that much in 2014, I get no subsidy. And of course, I can’t afford the $387/month.
I could just “play the game” (aka “lie”) and say that I’m only gonna make $11,500 in 2014, and get the full tax credit so I can afford the coverage. This is what my friends who are loyal ACA fans tell me I would do if I was “smart.”
However, if one earns more than what they forecast, the IRS will come back for the subsidy. In my case, if I did what my friends suggest I’d probably owe around $5,000 in 2015. This situation is kinda like wetting the bed: One problem was solved, but a bigger one was created that demands attention and is pretty messy.
I used to have a better option.

Before ACA I could buy a catastrophic plan for $89/month. Now, for people my age, such plans are “illegal” under ACA. Blue Cross Blue Shield of NC (BCBS-NC) wouldn’t let me keep my plan after December 31. (I did find a “temporary” plan that isn’t ACA-legal these days, but it costs 50 percent more, covers less than the old plan, and only lasts a few months.)
Let me restate my point more pointedly to the ACA apologists:  It wouldn’t have taken much thought to fix this problem. So I have to ask — was this just stupidity, or is there some reason why 30 percent of the uninsured were forgotten in the ACA? And most importantly, when are you gonna fix it?

Shorter: I can get coverage I can afford if I lie.

Wohlford and I had an email conversation about this article he wrote. These are some of  his initial comments to me that were not included in his article but need to be pointed out:

When you’re unemployed, COBRA is supposed to take care of your health insurance.  But let’s be honest, precious few people can afford COBRA payments while unemployed.

The alternative under ACA is to get a Bronze plan.  However, this has several problems:

1.  You start your deductible all over again (something I didn’t mention in that Letter to the Editor)

2.  The subsidy is based on what you made while working, or what you project to make (which assumes you’re gonna be working again?).  So most people won’t qualify for a subsidy.

3.  If you “play the game” (aka “lie”) to get a subsidy so you can afford health insurance, you’re on the hook to pay it all back the following April 15.  In a worst-case scenario, this might be as much as $5000 in tax liability.  Certainly it isn’t hard to imagine that people will be presented with $1000+ in additional taxes if they simply under-estimate their income.  

Of course, getting a short-term catastrophic policy is no longer an option, no matter what Obama says –BCBS-NC won’t offer me that plan anymore, if for no other reason.

This income tax liability is a huge problem — and from what I hear, Obama knows it.  And so do the Dems.  But they just aren’t talking about it (and let’s face it, it’s not a very sexy story, is it?).

Apparently it’s not very sexy to the media. So wait,  where is the NC media on this? *Crickets*  Local media outlet WRAL didn’t investigate, but instead chose to hold a phone bank and seemingly playing the role of an Obamacare Navigator.

#ICYMI => @WRAL‘s Hard Hitting #Obamacare Navigator Investigation http://t.co/ca1vwq7sIr #ncpol #ncsen #mediabias

— LL1885 – A.P. Dillon (@LadyLiberty1885) March 5, 2014

Also in that email conversation, he expressed a few questions that are probably pertinent, definitely important and in one case, rather pointed with regards to NC Senator Kay Hagan. Those comments are below.

Issues from my point of view:

– Why in the HELL ACA didn’t address the entire unemployed person thing, when (since at least the 1970’s, when I studied health insurance) 1/3 of all uninsured are that way due to job change?  I mean, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out any number of fixes for this one.  It’s like ACA wasn’t meant to solve the issues that were raised or something (ahem)?

– Do people who get “subsidies” know that they’re potentially on the hook for every dime of that “subsidy”?  When you’re broke you simply say “I’ll worry about that tomorrow” but then tomorrow DOES come.  Do people understand that if they get a job, make 1 dime over the max, that they’ll be on the hook for every dime of “subsidy”?  And in fact, are on the hook if they make more than they “guess” they were gonna make when they signed up?  

– I understand that Obama knows about this, and there is some discussion about waving those paybacks.  Is that true?  Let’s get Kay and the rest of the Dems to demand that Barry O give us an answer.  Obviously if he waives those fees during the year he invites massive fraud, so I don’t think he can do this before the election.

– Kay Hagan’s office has been woeful on ACA help.  Then again, her constituent services have always been woeful while in the Senate.  I watched a GOP Senator in Michigan, who had horrible services, get booted out by a Dem who had great constituent services while a state senator.  And in fact the GOP has barely put anyone up against her in the last 2 elections, partially ’cause they themselves get helped by her office!  Kay’s staffer told me to “Call the White House” on one occasion… and “Call the IRS” on another.  No followup, no letter expressing concern, NOTHING beyond that.  I’m saying that this WILL be a factor in the next election.  Kay, and every other Senator — certainly every DEM supporter — should’ve had subject matter experts ready to go when this rolled out. 

All good points and questions. All valid. The comment on Kay Hagan is pretty scathing, but she ducked the President, so it’s clear she has no problem dodging her own state’s citizens.

What Tim is going through here is probably happening to a lot more across NC. So how is the administration dealing with the plethora of problems that are riddled throughout Obamacare? Delay after delay — with no Congressional action of course. The latest round? Purely political move to try to save 2016 since Obama knows 2014 is lost. The individual mandate is now delayed?

Via JoshBlackman.com:

The WSJ reports that the Administration has quietly buried in a PDF (rule by blog post you know) a rule that extends for two years a waiver from the individual mandate for those claiming a hardship exemption (basically health insurance is too expensive because of Obamacare). Is this right?

ObamaCare’s implementers continue to roam the battlefield and shoot their own wounded, and the latest casualty is the core of the Affordable Care Act—the individual mandate. To wit, last week the Administration quietly excused millions of people from the requirement to purchase health insurance or else pay a tax penalty. This latest political reconstruction has received zero media notice, and the Health and Human Services Department didn’t think the details were worth discussing in a conference call, press materials or fact sheet. Instead, the mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was meant to preserve some health plans that don’t comply with ObamaCare benefit and redistribution mandates. Our sources only noticed the change this week.

That seven-page technical bulletin includes a paragraph and footnote that casually mention that a rule in a separate December 2013 bulletin would be extended for two more years, until 2016. Lo and behold, it turns out this second rule, which was supposed to last for only a year, allows Americans whose coverage was cancelled to opt out of the mandate altogether.

In 2013, HHS decided that ObamaCare’s wave of policy terminations qualified as a “hardship” that entitled people to a special type of coverage designed for people under age 30 or a mandate exemption. HHS originally defined and reserved hardship exemptions for the truly down and out such as battered women, the evicted and bankrupts. But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that you “believe that the plan options available in the [ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy” or “you consider other available policies unaffordable.”

This lax standard—no formula or hard test beyond a person’s belief—at least ostensibly requires proof such as an insurer termination notice. But people can also qualify for hardships for the unspecified nonreason that “you experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance,” which only requires “documentation if possible.” And yet another waiver is available to those who say they are merely unable to afford coverage, regardless of their prior insurance. In a word, these shifting legal benchmarks offer an exemption to everyone who conceivably wants one.

I was waiting for the individual mandate to be delayed. And this looks like it is it.

In a word, these shifting legal benchmarks offer an exemption to everyone who conceivably wants one.”  WOW.  Obamacare is so great, it’s almost nearly totally repealed by the President whose signature law it is. Read the rest.

This seems apt to close with:

It’s starting to dawn on me that Obama has been able to unilaterally waive more of Obamacare than the press ever would have let Romney.

— John Ekdahl (@JohnEkdahl) March 12, 2014

If you enjoyed this article, you should really check out other pieces written by Da Tech Guy’s Magnificent Seven writers and maybe hit that tip jar!

A.P. Dillon (Lady Liberty 1885), is a Conservative minded wife and mother living in the Triangle area of North Carolina. A.P. Dillon founded the blog LadyLiberty1885.com in 2009. After the 2012 election, she added an Instapundit style blog called The ConMom Blog. Mrs. Dillon’s writing, in addition to Da Tech Guy’s Magnificent 7, can also be found at StopCommonCoreNC.org, WatchdogWireNC and WizBang. Non-political writing projects include science fiction novellas that are, as of yet, unpublished. Her current writing project is a children’s book series.