GOP Plans Obamacare Repeal And Delay

You can’t just rip the bandaid off

(NY Times) Republicans in Congress plan to move almost immediately next month to repeal the Affordable Care Act, as President-elect Donald J. Trump promised. But they also are likely to delay the effective date so that they have several years to phase out President Obama’s signature achievement.

This emerging “repeal and delay” strategy, which Speaker Paul D. Ryan discussed this week with Vice President-elect Mike Pence, underscores a growing recognition that replacing the health care law will be technically complicated and could be politically explosive.

Since the law was signed by Mr. Obama in March 2010, 20 million uninsured people have gained coverage, and the law has become deeply embedded in the nation’s health care system, accepted with varying degrees of enthusiasm by consumers, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and state and local governments.

This is the wise move. No matter how bad the law is, no matter how silly it is to have health insurance that people can’t afford to use because of the high deductibles, no matter than insurance providers are dropping out left and right, no matter that the premiums are being jacked up beyond normal rates (and the taxpayers are often paying to cover these through subsidies), no matter etc and so on the problems, the time to eradicate this law immediately was in 2013. Had Republicans come out and voted for Romney, it could have been killed off easily. Now, with it being so embedded, the replacement plan needs to be slowly implemented so that those with Obamacare (let’s not forget that millions of those with Ocare plans were not new to the insurance market, but, simply people who lost their plans due to Ocare and had to sign up via Ocare) and want health insurance are able to keep it.

So the GOP will make sure that there is a transition period so that people aren’t harmed. Obviously, the Times thinks this is a Bad Idea

But health policy experts suggest “repeal and delay” would be extremely damaging to a health care system already on edge.

“The idea that you can repeal the Affordable Care Act with a two- or three-year transition period and not create market chaos is a total fantasy,” said Sabrina Corlette, a professor at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University. “Insurers need to know the rules of the road in order to develop plans and set premiums.”

Would these be the same policy experts who helped write this turd of a law in the first place? The insurers don’t seem to be doing so well knowing the current rules of the road when it comes to Ocare, do they?

But in the Senate, Republicans would need support from some Democrats if they are to replace the Affordable Care Act.

The budget reconciliation rules that would allow Republicans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act have strict limits. The rules are primarily intended to protect legislation that affects spending or revenues. The health law includes insurance market standards and other policies that do not directly affect the budget, and Senate Republicans would, in many cases, need 60 votes to change such provisions.

Really? Dems used parliamentary shenanigans followed by the budget reconciliation method to pass this turd of a bill. Democrats do not get to complain if Republicans do the same. Here’s a phrase you should get used to: you lost.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: GOP Plans Obamacare Repeal And Delay »

It’s Never To Early To Discuss ‘Climate Change’ And Christmas

Warmists totally want you to send a Christmas card to Ivanka Trump

Yet, Ivanka Trump, Politico reported, will make fighting climate change the signature issue of her tenure as first daughter. Good for her. Maybe she can talk some sense into her dad, the fellow who once tweeted that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy. (snip)

Oh, and I’m sending Ivanka Trump a thank you note for the unexpected Christmas gift.

Of course, Warmists have to have a Christmas ‘climate change’ rally….but not on the 25th, because they want to chill on their paid holiday that they’ll still rail against

In the wake of Conservative councillor Harvey Odze praising Donald Trump for calling climate change a “Chinese hoax”, Hackney campaigners are to protest against the council “dragging its feet” over its £42m fossil fuel investments.

The event will take place at Hackney Town Hall Square from 2pm on 10 December, marking a year since Britain signed the Paris climate deal negotiated by 195 countries. (snip)

Payne added: “Santa’s arctic retreat is melting down – in some parts it is a shocking 20C above the norm. We’re calling on the government to stop retreating from the agreements it signed last year in Paris.”

Funny thing is, a lot of 1st World governments are retreating from their utterly non-binding pledges. But, hey, picking a Christmas tree can be all about Hotcoldwetdry!

Did you know that choosing a real Christmas tree over an artificial tree can be considered an environmentally sound choice? Here’s why.

According to the Christmas Tree Farm Network, Christmas tree farms stabilize soil, protect water supplies and provide a shelter for wildlife. Christmas trees absorb carbon dioxide (a gas linked to global warming and climate change) while producing oxygen. How much oxygen? Just an acre of Christmas trees produce the daily oxygen needed for 18 people.

Not mentioned is that these trees are chopped down and then simply discarded shortly after Christmas. Sure, companies plant new ones and use the older growth, but, seriously, did we need the globull warming schtick? Though, props for calling it carbon dioxide rather than “carbon.”

Finally, let’s wrap up (until I look for more in a few days, because there are plenty available) with one anti-Trump Christmas carol (among many, not all anti-Trump, mind you)

To the tune of “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas”

Have yourself a warmer little Christmas/ Watch the high tide spray/ From now on to get back home we’ll have to wade.

Climate change is a Chinese hoax, says denier folks’ false lore/ Just you wait, till the Sunshine State is six feet from shore to shore.

Someday soon we all may be much wiser/ If the fates allow/ Until then we’ll have to paddle through somehow/ And have yourself a warmer little Christmas now.

Read: It’s Never To Early To Discuss ‘Climate Change’ And Christmas »

If All You See…

…is an evil refrigerator causing hot and cold weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Coyote Blog, with a post offering an apology to fellow Skeptics over California stupidity.

Read: If All You See… »

Good News: We’re Beyond The Point Of No Return For ‘Climate Change’

So, does this mean that the Cult of Climastrology can just move on?

Climate change escalating so fast it is ‘beyond point of no return’
New study rewrites two decades of research and author says we are ‘beyond point of no return’

Global warming is beyond the “point of no return”, according to the lead scientist behind a ground-breaking climate change study.

The full impact of climate change has been underestimated because scientists haven’t taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment.

Dr Thomas Crowther’s report has concluded that carbon emitted from soil was speeding up global warming.

Dr Crowther, speaking to The Independent, branded Donald Trump’s sceptical stance on climate change as “catastrophic for humanity”.

What this is all about is blaming what is a natural process, the release of CO2, which they unscientifically refer to as “carbon”, during a typical Holocene warm period, on Mankind’s supposed increase in temperature. Why? Because that’s what cult’s do.

Of course, despite total doom

“It’s fair to say we have passed the point of no return on global warming and we can’t reverse the effects, but certainly we can dampen them,” said the biodiversity expert.

In other words, they want more of the same Big Government policies that increase energy costs, increase the cost of living, redistribute hard earned money, and decrease liberty and freedom.

Read: Good News: We’re Beyond The Point Of No Return For ‘Climate Change’ »

Are You Ready For A New Global Warming Apocalypse Movie?

Hollywood keeps making these agenda movies, and they keep failing. We’re soon to be treated to another

(Daily Caller) Hollywood actor Nicolas Cage’s newest film depicts a hollowed-out Earth, ravaged by the ill-effects of so-called man-made global warming.

Cage plays a political bureaucrat in “The Humanity Bureau” whose job is to exile those considered expendable on Earth, which has become ravaged by the ill-effects of so-called man-made warming.

The movie is another climate change-themed feature in Hollywood’s quiver — a quiver that includes moves like, “The Day After Tomorrow” and former President Al Gore’s, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Expect this to be another box office flop. People just aren’t that interested in mixing politics with big theater releases. They just want to watch a movie.

It also presents Cage’s decision to jump head first into Tinsel Town’s obsession with producing films directed at haranguing people about what the world could look like if global warming is not met head on.

Can’t we just watch a movie anymore for entertainment? Apparently not. Hollywood keeps pushing their political agend, and people stay away.

Similarly, you’ve probably seen the constant barrage of commercials for Miss Sloane, scheduled for release in full in December. What you’ve probably not seen is that this movie is about gun control, and it doesn’t hide this, except in most of the commercials

With a staunch Second Amendment supporter preparing to enter the Oval Office, Hollywood is ramping up its gun control efforts. The latest attempt comes in the form of “Miss Sloane,” a movie demonizing gun manufacturers and the gun lobby, as the main character Elizabeth Sloane (Jessica Chastain) fights to heroically curb gun rights.

Think about this as you’re subjected to all the commercials. Perhaps you’ll even see the one quicky which mentions gun control, but, you’ll probably have to be watching a station like MSNBC. Regardless of any good marks on sites like Rotten Tomatoes, expect it to be a box office bomb, because, let’s face it, even liberals do want to pay the high costs to go to the movies and be lectured, even on things they agree with. And we can probably expect a bunch more politicized movies with Trump as president.

Read: Are You Ready For A New Global Warming Apocalypse Movie? »

Trump’s Carrier Deal Is Big Problem Or Something

Now, let’s just imagine that it had been Mr. Obama who had made the deal to keep Carrier in the U.S. He would have been praised to high heaven. Trump making a deal (even before being inaugurated)? Well, there’s big problems, you guys! And we get this type of Voxsplainin’

This week, Donald Trump has been trumpeting an announcement by Carrier, which makes furnaces and air conditioners, that the company will be keeping about 800 jobs in the United States instead of moving them to Mexico.

This is obviously great news for the 800 American workers whose jobs will be saved, and it has already generated a lot of positive publicity for Donald Trump. But the announcement also illustrates an inherent problem with Trump’s approach to economic policymaking: As he focuses on small-scale, headline-grabbing deals, he’s neglecting the larger policy questions that will ultimately determine the success of his economic agenda.

Does Vox understand that Trump isn’t actually the POTUS yet? Doesn’t matter, because no matter what Trump does, there will be cause to find fault.

But a series of Carrier-like deals doesn’t add up to a viable economic agenda. For one thing, these deals are way too small. There are 150 million workers in the United States, and the US economy needs to create about 200,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. Trump would have to negotiate dozens of Carrier-sized deals every week to have a serious impact on job growth — and so far he’s announced only two deals in three weeks.

He’s not actually President. Anyhow, where was this concern over the last 8 years, when a goodly chunk of economic reports showed less than 200,000 jobs a month created? And I bet the people who kept their jobs do not see them as “way too small.”

The larger issue, though, is that governing through a series of deals creates serious perverse incentives. If Trump starts giving corporate welfare to companies that promise not to move jobs to Mexico, we’ll see a flood of companies threatening to move to Mexico in hopes of getting a handout. Taxpayers would wind up paying to save a lot of jobs that weren’t actually in danger in the first place.

They do have a point on offering incentives. The problem here, though, is that states and Los Federales have been doing this for a long time. Is it better to keep those jobs, or see them leave? For the most part, taxpayers do not pay. They are just tax breaks. Where’s the concern from Vox over the taxpayers actually paying for public and private sector unions?

Conversely, if Trump tries to punish companies that move jobs overseas — for example, by denying them federal contracts — companies will start looking for ways to hide the fact that they’re moving jobs overseas. An overly aggressive campaign could also put US businesses at a competitive disadvantage against foreign multinationals that are free to locate their factories in low-wage countries, resulting in US companies losing market share and eventually going bankrupt.

Has he done this? No. Interestingly, there was no condemnation from Vox or other liberal outlets when Democrats specifically threatened to punish companies that move jobs and/or their headquarters overseas.

All in all, the above and the rest of the article is simply a way to attack Trump for …… keeping jobs in the US. Seriously. That’s their concern. The next four years is going to be fun if we go by this standard. The media still doesn’t get that Trump beat them at the ballot box, and they continue doing the things that helped Donald beat them.

Meanwhile, you have Think Progress saying this was a bad deal. The NY Times finds a way to put a negative spin on the story, as does the Washington Post. Salon is having their usual hissy fit. The NY Times even finds a way to say that this shows that Big Government is great!

And Mr. Obama is probably sitting around in his office going “hey, guys? I’m still president. Have a little under two months left. Guys?”

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump’s Carrier Deal Is Big Problem Or Something »

Surprise: Anti-Trump Graffiti Involved Philly City Attorney

I’m betting that this is going to be slow-walked to the point that he is not terminated or even charged with what should be a felony

(Philly.com) A city attorney involved in an anti-Donald Trump vandalism incident, caught on camera, made a “dumb mistake,” and remains in his job for now Mayor Kenney said Thursday.

Uh huh. A dumb mistake. I’ve made those, and paid the price. I bet you have, too.

Duncan Lloyd, an assistant city solicitor, was identified in surveillance footage that captured Lloyd and a second man walking along Germantown Avenue in Chestnut Hill on Nov 25. In the footage, Lloyd is seen wearing a blue blazer and holding a glass of wine, filming or taking photos, while a second man spray paints “F— Trump,” on the wall of a newly opened Fresh Grocer.

As of Thursday morning, police said no arrests have been made in the incident and Kenney said Lloyd remains employed with the city.

If this was you or me, we’d have been arrested.

Police have estimated the damage at between $3,000 and $10,000.

That’s felony territory there.

And wearing an ascot in 2016 should get him another felony charge. See the story and photos.

Read: Surprise: Anti-Trump Graffiti Involved Philly City Attorney »

If All You See…

…is what could possibly be carbon pollution created Bad Weather fog, but, you’re really not worried if it’s real, because just thought is enough, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Virtual Mirage, with a post on refugees go home.

Read: If All You See… »

Foreign Cities Totally Vow TO Fight ‘Climate Change’ Despite Trump

Um, ok?

Sydney, Vancouver mayors vow to fight climate change despite Trump

Cities around the world can combat climate change without national government support, the mayors of Sydney and Vancouver said on Wednesday, amid fears that a Donald Trump U.S. presidency could undermine efforts to limit global warming.

The two were in Mexico City for the C40 Mayors’ Summit, where nearly 50 mayors and deputies from around the globe will discuss environmental issues such as air pollution.

Glad they could take long fossil fueled trips to tell us this

“Denial doesn’t stop climate change accelerating so it’s even more important for cities to do their bit,” Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore told Reuters.

“An important message from Sydney to the U.S. cities is: ‘Notwithstanding a Trump–type government, you can get on and do an incredible amount,'” she added.

Cities are responsible for up to 70 percent of the world’s harmful greenhouse gases, according to a 2011 report by the United Nations.

Earlier in November, a group of 40 U.S. mayors sent an open letter to Trump stating that they would forge ahead in tackling climate change, even without his support.

OK, have at it. Go for it. No one is stopping you. A better question is “why haven’t you done all this already?” Why haven’t they instituted restrictive policies that artificially increase the cost of energy which will increase the cost of living for their citizens? Why haven’t they done away with the use of fossil fuels in their cities? And heavy carbon taxes? Sure, many have done it to a small degree, and many make noises, but, they won’t do it themselves. They want Everyone to be forced to engage in their cultish beliefs.

Besides, what can Trump do when it comes to foreign cities like Sydney and Vancouver? This is simply fake news based on Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Read: Foreign Cities Totally Vow TO Fight ‘Climate Change’ Despite Trump »

Washington Post Totally Wants Trump To Negotiate On Sanctuary Cities

The Editorial Board sees no reason to punish millions of Americans by withholding financial aid to those cities who are sanctuaries for illegal aliens. I’m still waiting for the editorial arguing that Mr. Obama shouldn’t have threatened to do the same when it comes to school systems refusing to implement policies that allow gender confused boys to enter the bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms of underage girls.

Trump pledged to ‘end’ sanctuary cities. Common sense, not threats, should guide him.

PRESIDENT-ELECT Donald Trump’s threat to deport 2 million to 3 million illegal immigrants with criminal records — a flimsy number thatcrumbles upon scrutiny — has caused tremors in some of the nation’s biggest metropolitan areas, especially those considered “sanctuary cities.” In fact, while some localities impose limits on working with federal immigration authorities, a large majority — including most regarded as sanctuary cities — do cooperate when it comes to helping to transfer and deport dangerous and violent felons scheduled to be released from jail or prison.

Usually they are forced to do so, because the Feds already have detainers on the illegals, and the jails are typically run by the county sheriff’s department or the state, not the cities. And, yes, the majority of cities do work with Los Federales on this. That’s a strawman argument, because it’s the ones who don’t that are the problem.

The question is, what happens if Mr. Trump wants to go further by enlisting local law enforcement agencies to hand over or help sweep up undocumented immigrants convicted for small-time shoplifting, driving without a license and other minor offenses? The issue — part of a “negotiation,” in the words of Reince Priebus, Mr. Trump’s pick for White House chief of staff — is which crimes are sufficiently serious that they should trigger deportation, and reasonably require cooperation in that regard from local officials.

This is prognostication without evidence that it might happen. Regardless, local law enforcement is, by law, supposed to inform ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) when they have detained an illegal alien.

What crimes are sufficiently serious? Well, being in the country illegally would be a start.

A common-sense test should apply to federal policies and local ones. A fair-minded federal standard would not require local law enforcement agencies to be pressed into service as deportation agencies chasing or handing over undocumented immigrants who have committed minor offenses. To do so would subvert relations between law enforcement and local immigrant communities, in which trust and cooperation are critical.

The only ones suggesting that local law enforcement might be pressed into being La Migra are the members of the WP Editorial Board, and then they set the conditions where they shouldn’t.

A fair-minded local standard would ensure that police, sheriffs and corrections officials see to it that dangerous criminals — violent felons and those convicted of multiple serious offenses, drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers — do not slip through the cracks.

The WPEB goes on to note the situation in which Kate Steinle (the article doesn’t even have the courtesy of printing her name) was murdered by an illegal alien, who was back in the country yet again illegally, who had a long rapsheet of felonies, who “slipped through the cracks” in San Francisco. In other words, the SF law enforcement ignored the federal detainer. This is rather the point in cracking down on sanctuary cities, places illegals, especially those with criminal records/wanted for criminal offenses, can stream to, know that law enforcement will mostly ignore them, and, if they are picked up, the elected officials will force them to be let go.

The tricky part is that there is no single accepted definition of a sanctuary city. Some, including New York, cooperate in handing over some felons, but not others, to federal authorities at their release date, depending on the severity of the crime. Others, such as Cook County in Illinois, which includes Chicago, refuse to turn over undocumented immigrants unless federal agents obtain a court warrant.

Perhaps they should have read the Ohio Jobs and Justice PAC page on sanctuary cities, which defines them and lists them, essentially the first to ever do so, and cities and counties are continuously added, ones which are primarily run by Democrats.

The Trump administration is entitled to seek fair and consistent standards that protect communities from dangerous criminals without poisoning relations between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. Better to negotiate terms than punish millions of Americans by suspending billions in federal funding to localities.

You mean like how Arizona was threatened by the Obama administration over their illegal aliens bill, SB1070? Or states were threatened by Team Obama over their gay marriage restrictions, typically passed by the citizens voting on new state constitution amendments? Or how NC was threatened over HB2, which stops state, county, and local governments from forcing private businesses to accomodate the gender confused, as well as not allowing them to use government property as such (even though there were no penalties)?

As far as fair and consistent standards, they are already on the books! There are federal laws about this. The Democratic Party run sanctuary cities are not in legal compliance.

Read: Washington Post Totally Wants Trump To Negotiate On Sanctuary Cities »

Pirate's Cove