NY Times: Obamacare Has To Change To A More Government System To Survive

Obamacare is collapsing in exactly the way that opponents (which was, and still is, a majority of Americans) said it would before it passed. We also stated that private sector insurers would be priced out of the Ocare marketplace due to financial losses, which would lead to Democrats calling for a public option and single payer. And, now that insurers are leaving the Exchanges, Democrats are calling for….a public option

Ailing Obama Health Care Act May Have to Change to Survive

The fierce struggle to enact and carry out the Affordable Care Act was supposed to put an end to 75 years of fighting for a health care system to insure all Americans. Instead, the law’s troubles could make it just a way station on the road to another, more stable health care system, the shape of which could be determined on Election Day.

Seeing a lack of competition in many of the health law’s online insurance marketplaces, Hillary Clinton, President Obama and much of the Democratic Party are calling for more government, not less.

Democrats own Ocare lock, stock, and barrel. They created it, they crafted it, the voted for it. They implemented it. Now that it’s been shown to be a failure as predicted, they want more government. Surprise?

The departing president, the woman who seeks to replace him and nearly one-third of the Senate have endorsed a new government-sponsored health plan, the so-called public option, to give consumers an additional choice. A significant number of Democrats, for whom Senator Bernie Sanders spoke in the primaries, favor a single-payer arrangement, which could take the form of Medicare for all.

An additional choice? The way insurers are abandoning the Ocare marketplace would soon make it the only choice. Of course, medical providers are already reticent to accept Ocare insurance now, and many of them don’t. Many of them are not accepting any new Medicare patients. Do you think they will be happy to accept the government option insurance? They aren’t in business to constantly lose money and spend lots of time trying to get their payments from the government.

In such divergent proposals lies an emerging truth: Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement will almost certainly have to change to survive. The two parties agree that for too many people, health plans in the individual insurance market are still too expensive and inaccessible. (snip)

“Too many Americans still strain to pay for their physician visits and prescriptions, cover their deductibles or pay their monthly insurance bills; struggle to navigate a complex, sometimes bewildering system; and remain uninsured,” Mr. Obama wrote in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

In other words, the law crafted and passed by Democrats, against the wishes of the American People, is a disaster. But, instead of getting rid of it and enacting policies that work, they want to double down on government involvement with our health care and health insurance.

“Even the most ardent proponents of the law would say that it has structural and technical problems that need to be addressed,” she said. “The subsidies were not generous enough. The penalties for not getting insurance were not stiff enough. And we don’t have enough young healthy people in the exchanges.”

So, more force of government, and young people are not joining. Huh.

Read: NY Times: Obamacare Has To Change To A More Government System To Survive »

Good News From The Washington Post: A President Trump Could Deport Freely

The Washington Post Editorial Board is very vexed over the notion that a President Donald Trump could lawfully do lots of the things he promised to do when it comes to immigration, because that would be mean or something to people who shouldn’t be in the country legally and to people who not only don’t give a damn about assimilating, but expect America to change for them

A President Trump could deport freely

DONALD TRUMP has telegraphed his intentions, if not always consistently, to radically shift immigration policy and, in so doing, subvert America’s vitality and international standing as a beacon of diversity and tolerance. While he cannot unilaterally undertake every change he proposes, there is plenty he can do, on his own, to overhaul America’s approach to immigrants. His program would undercut the nation’s economic prospects, its values and the vibrancy of its neighborhoods and communities.

We used to be a beacon of law and order, which would accept people who wanted to be a part of our great nation and do it legally. Many of those neighborhoods are rife with violence, drugs, and criminality. Others are hotbeds of radical thought, the type where women need 4 witnesses when they are raped. We have plenty of diversity: strangely, we are supposed to be tolerant of people who refuse to accept our laws and even work to subvert them.

A President Trump could slash the number of refugees allowed to enter the country, including from Syria, downgrading President Obama’s goal of admitting 110,000 in the fiscal year that started Saturday. Federal law gives presidents the power to bar any “class of aliens” they deem “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” so Mr. Trump could as promised ban immigrants from Muslim-majority countries. The effect would be to undercut Washington’s standing with allies as well as America’s relations with its own Muslim citizens — a blow to America’s capacity to fight terrorism.

Of course, Trump has not talked about banning all Muslims: he wants to do deep background checks on any who originate from those countries with a background in radical Islam. Many of America’s allies are looking to do the same, as the European nations are learning just what happens when these people are let in willy nilly. Rape, sexual assault, violence, criminality, and abuse towards the citizens in the host areas. Not too mention all those holding radical Islamic beliefs and members of ISIS.

It is interesting that the paragraph is the only real mention of “law.” The law would give Trump the power to deport the heck out of illegals, who aren’t just border jumpers, but those who overstayed their visas.

In the same category of feasible but self-defeating policies, Mr. Trump could revoke work permits and the protection from deportation granted by Mr. Obama to nearly 1.5 million young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children by their parents. Just as Mr. Obama has used executive orders to shield those “Dreamers,” Mr. Trump could remove the shield and thereby expel from the country a generation of promising, American-educated young immigrants, most of whom have little or no memory of their birth countries.

Technically, Obama’s executive order ends with him leaving office. Regardless, it was a lawless order. Trump getting rid of it would be consistent with federal law. People who took advantage of America, and who, rather than politely asking to be a part of America, made Demands.

As president, Mr. Trump could also unilaterally broaden the categories of undocumented immigrants targeted for accelerated deportation; they would include, as he has pledged, visa overstayers. Together, they amount to more than 5 million people.

As they should be. We allowed them into our country, usually for work or school. They repaid that by staying illegally.

A study by the American Action Forum, a conservative group, estimates that deporting all illegal immigrants, as Mr. Trump has threatened, would require more than 90,000 federal deportation agents; there are fewer than 5,000. The nation’s 34,000 detention beds would have to increase tenfold, and more than 30,000 additional federal lawyers would be needed to process the throngs that would jam immigration courts.

Not really. Instead of catch and release, it’s catch and deport.

The price of carrying out such a mass expulsion (along with the wall Mr. Trump would build) would not be limited to the estimated budgetary expense ($400 billion to $600 billion), nor even the blow to the economy of depleting the labor force by more than 10 million workers. The most lasting and damaging cost would be to America’s prestige globally and to its founding principles. A nation that expels millions of long-standing residents with deep roots in their communities is not a leader; it is a fearful, mean and meek place, heartless and spiritually crabbed. This is not the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers; it is certainly not a home of the brave.

America’s founding principle was a nation based on law with the consent of the governed. That we are a nation of Law, not of Men. And the most lasting and damaging cost is not our prestige globally or what hardcore leftists think are our founding principles (which apparently doesn’t include freedom and limited government and adherence to Law): it’s things like this

124 illegal immigrants released by DHS later charged with murder, report finds

More than 100 illegal immigrants caught but released by the Obama administration over the last five years have gone on to be charged with murders after they were set free, according to a new report released Monday from the Center for Immigration Studies.

In all, some 121 immigrants who were freed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement between 2010 and 2014 have since been charged with a total of 135 homicide-related crimes. Another three immigrants were charged with murders in 2015, bringing to 124 the total number of murder suspects the government had, then released.

Every murder, every rape, every assault, every time an illegal steals the identity of a legal citizen, causing them significant harm, this can all be laid at the feet of the people who support the illegals.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Good News From The Washington Post: A President Trump Could Deport Freely »

If All You See…

…is extreme weather, where it snows in the heat of summer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on Duke creating a safe space for men…but not why you think.

It’s snow week!

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Patriotic Pinup Gil Elvgren

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous first Sunday of October. Can you believe how fast the year has gone by? The sun is shining, there’s a little nip in the air, and the geese are honking away. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. The Daley Gator notes a Halloween decoration deemed too scary
  2. The Last Refuge notes spray paint pro-Hillary vandalism on a Trump building
  3. The Right Scoop covers Newt and Hannity bitching about Trump’s lack of discipline
  4. This ain’t Hell…., has some feel good stories
  5. Watcher Of Weasels discusses suicide by cop in San Diego
  6. Weasel Zippers notes a leftist judge who wants to dump all guns in the ocean
  7. Independent Sentinel notes Hillary wants to give Obamacare to illegal aliens
  8. Watts Up With That? covers what might have caused the big Aussie blackout
  9. A View From The Beach discusses feminists trying to destroy science
  10. Basil’s Blog (is back) covers voting your conscious
  11. Chicks On The Right notes police officers refusing to provide security for protesters
  12. Conservatives4Palin wonders if Hillary has already committed voter fraud
  13. Creeping Sharia covers France’s new Sharia police
  14. Doug Ross @ Journal discusses Hillary’s new Middle East
  15. And last, but not least, Fire Andrea Mitchell covers the names Hillary uses to slur Americans.
  16. Separately, my prayers go out to Fausta, who lost her mother yesterday.

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Bombshell Or Something: Trump Might Possibly Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes For 18 Years

At the end of the day, the question this brings up is “will anyone beyond the anti-business left give a damn?” Here’s the NY Times going hysteric

“Trump Tax Records Obtained by The Times Reveal He Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades.”

Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.

Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump’s 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period.

If the part where he didn’t pay taxes afterwards is true, then, so what? He followed the laws. Mr. Trump didn’t pass the law. Would you not follow the laws, take advantage of the laws? Of course you would. Democrats who constantly call for higher taxes, for everyone paying their “fair share,” they themselves take advantage of all the “loopholes”, as the put it, in the tax law to reduce their tax liability.

Virtually everyone takes advantage of the tax code to reduce their tax liability. Nearly 45% will had a net zero federal tax liability in 2016, up from 42% in 2013.

Did the Clinton’s and Obama’s not do all they can to avoid paying their fair share? Obama’s effective rate was 18.7% for his 2015 returns. If you had a loss, you can take advantage of the tax code, too. You can take advantage of mortgage deductions. Is that fair to people without a home mortgage? Deductions for children. Is that fair to people to people who don’t have children?

We’ll have to see if this even makes a difference in the least to the polls. Will anyone beyond the Democrat base care?

And, is this worse than what Hillary has done? Smearing and attempting to destroy the women who credibly accused her husband of sexual misconduct and rape? The loss of 4 Americans due to the mismanagement of Obama’s Libyan adventure? Her email scandal, exposing national security material to anyone who wanted to easily hack her server? Her conflicts of interest between her job as Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation? Her speeches to Wall Street, which she won’t release? The “Muslim Brotherhood Princess”, Huma Abedin, serving as her chief go to person?

Let’s not forget Bill using the IRS as his personal Gestapo during his time as president. Think Hillary won’t do the same? How about keeping enemy files via the FBI? Sale of high-tech secrets to China? Seriously, there is so much material, it’s hard to know where to start with the Clinton’s.

Will Trump strike back using any of the material? It’s October 2nd, and he’s barely touched any of it. Instead, he likes to get into spats with former Ms. Universe winners rather than going after Hillary.

There is one interesting thing to consider about the report, as Patterico writes at Red State

My guess: Hillary Clinton found out about this before the debate. Regarding the timing, the story says only that the Times obtained the records “last month.” If Hillary was tipped off, that could explain her comment at the debate speculating that the records, if revealed, would show that Trump had paid no income taxes for several years — an accusation that Trump seemed to confirm when he replied: “That makes me smart.”

Would anyone be surprised if there was collusion between the NY Times and the Hillary campaign?

Anyhow, of course the media is having a field day with this report. Few had the same degree of apoplexy when Hillary left 4 Americans to die in Benghazi nor over her whole email issue, which would have seen other people not named Clinton put on trial.

Oh, BTW, I wonder if the NY Times will take advantage of the same tax laws to avoid paying taxation for years due to their “slight loss” of $500,000 during the 2nd quarter of 2016?

More: Via Hot Air, we learn that the NY Times not only paid $0 taxes in 2014, they got a refund

More recently, for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxesand got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, “The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.” If you don’t think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again.

Huh.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Bombshell Or Something: Trump Might Possibly Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes For 18 Years »

Surprise: Warmists Blame Beached Whales On ‘Climate Change’

I’m going to start blaming everything on ‘climate change’. Forgot to call a customer back? Climate change. Speeding? Yes, officer, it was climate change. Caught looking at a girl’s posterior, reading what is written on her yoga pants? It was climate change

Climate change suspected as whales wash up dead in Chile

Several large whales have washed up dead in recent months on beaches in northern Chile, where scientists suspect they are moving to in increasing numbers because of climate change.

After the beaching of hundreds of dead whales in the south last year, the trend has now shifted to areas where the phenomenon was previously rare.

Last weekend, a 14m-long fin whale was found dead on rocks at a beach near the city of Coquimbo. This prompted experts from the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Service (Sernapesca) to investigate. They say that the whales in the Pacific off Chile’s coast are acting unusually. (snip)

“There has been an increase in marine life in the area, possibly due to climate change,” said conservation medicine professor Frederick Toro, of Andres Bello University. “That may have increased the diversity of the whales.”

I blame all the scientists in clothing with links to petroleum moving around in fossil fueled vehicles and boats.

The rise in whale beachings might also be a natural consequence of the greater number of whales now in the region, Dr Cerda said.

So, it could possibly be something totally natural? Huh.

Read: Surprise: Warmists Blame Beached Whales On ‘Climate Change’ »

If All You See…

…are trees that will be killed by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on “transparency”.

Any ideas for next week’s theme?

Read: If All You See… »

NY Times Seems Rather Upset That Trump Would Attack Hillary Over Bill’s “Infidelities”

The word “rape” fails to appear in this Times article by Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman. Sexual assault only appears once. It barely touches upon the whole issue of how Bill treated women over the years, nor how Hillary has enabled and defended this behavior, nor how she attempted to destroy the women who credibly accused her husband of rape and sexual misconduct

Donald Trump Opens New Line of Attack on Hillary Clinton: Her Marriage

Donald J. Trump unleashed a slashing new attack on Hillary Clinton over Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions on Friday as he sought to put the Clintons’ relationship at the center of his political argument against her before their next debate.

Mr. Trump, aiming to unnerve Mrs. Clinton, even indicated that he was rethinking his statement at their last debate that he would “absolutely” support her if she won in November, saying: “We’re going to have to see. We’re going to see what happens. We’re going to have to see.”

In an interview with The New York Times, he also contended that infidelity was “never a problem” during his three marriages, though his first ended in an ugly divorce after Mr. Trump began a relationship with the woman who became his second wife.

The article spends a little time on former Ms. Universe, Alicia Machado, because of course it does

Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, argued that Mrs. Clinton’s support for Ms. Machado was part of a pattern by the Democrat of treating women to suit her own political ends, and raised Mrs. Clinton’s criticism of women who had been involved with her husband, such as Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers.

He said he was bringing up Mr. Clinton’s infidelities because he thought they would repulse female voters and turn them away from the Clintons, and because he was eager to unsettle Mrs. Clinton in their next two debates and on the campaign trail.

“She’s nasty, but I can be nastier than she ever can be,” Mr. Trump said.

“Hillary Clinton was married to the single greatest abuser of women in the history of politics,” he added about Mr. Clinton. “Hillary was an enabler, and she attacked the women who Bill Clinton mistreated afterward. I think it’s a serious problem for them, and it’s something that I’m considering talking about more in the near future.”

Quite frankly, if he was going to do this, he should have done it in response to Hillary during the debates, while noting that if she wanted to go down these sleazy roads, well, there are plenty of roads leading to Bill. Instead, he’s been defending (which is losing in politics) and talking way too much about Machado, doubling down, getting silly. By this metric, he lost the debate.

Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers have tried to suggest focusing on accusations that Mrs. Clinton tried to discredit women who said they had been harassed by Mr. Clinton. Chief among those suggesting this approach is Roger Stone, the longest-serving Trump adviser, who wrote a book called “The Clintons’ War on Women,” laying out accusations from Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, who have accused Mr. Clinton of sexual assault — accusations the Clintons or their lawyer David Kendall have denied.

Well, that’s one way to gloss over the dozens of women who credibly accused Bill, and there’s no mention of how Hillary attacked those women, such as calling Gennifer Flowers “trailer trash” and Monica Lewinsky “narcissistic loony tunes.”

In the interview Friday afternoon, Mr. Trump said he would begin preparing as soon as this weekend for the next debate, on Oct. 9, and would be plotting ways to attack Mrs. Clinton on policy issues like trade and national security, as well as to unnerve her with possible targets like her husband’s past.

He should have been doing this for the first debate. And, quite honestly, while the Times seems rather upset that Trump would consider doing this, Trump seems to be rather lost and in over his head. With a bit over a month left, things really haven’t gotten much better. There’s no real ground game beyond speeches and depending on the Trumpites. I doubt there have been all that many offices opened in the states. He is easily baited by Team Hillary, and looks bad taking it. Does he really want to win?

Read: NY Times Seems Rather Upset That Trump Would Attack Hillary Over Bill’s “Infidelities” »

21 States Sue Obama Over New Overtime Rules

Has there ever been a president that has been sued this much? His administration has sued numerous times over their lack of response to Freedom Of Information Act requests. They’ve been sued over regulations and rule making. It just continues on and on

(Fox News) President Obama is doing anything but closing out his lame duck term quietly.  On the contrary he’s doing yet another end run around both the U.S. Congress and all 50 states, imposing yet another mandate that will cost money and jobs, possibly forcing states to raise taxes as well.

Twenty-one states have filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Sherman, Texas, to stop him.  Hours after the states filed their lawsuit, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups filed a similar lawsuit with the same federal court.

Obama’s new mandate would force employers in all states to pay overtime to certain state employees. These employees include “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional” workers as they are not covered by the federal law that requires states to pay overtime for work performed beyond 40 hours in a week.  The mandate applies to both private and public sector employers.

This seems to go back to Obama’s overtime decree, which would require employers to give certain people OT even though they are what is called “exempt” per law, which would mean fewer people being made management and more people having their hours limited. Oh, and more turned into part timers. As Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants and a member of the Job Creators Network noted

(Forbes) The real world is far different than the Labor Department’s Excel spreadsheet. This new rule will simply add to the extensive regulatory maze the Obama Administration has imposed on employers, forcing many to offset increased labor expense by cutting costs elsewhere. In practice, this means reduced opportunities, bonuses, benefits, perks and promotions.

Perhaps the biggest consequence of the rule is that it will cause some employers to reclassify salaried employees as hourly, and set schedules so they can more easily track hours worked and avoid excessive claims for overtime. For example, taking a manager’s current salary and allocating it across 45 hours (with 5 hours of overtime pay) will result in no increased labor expense or increased salaries. However, it would mandate five hours of overtime, rather than allowing managers to take advantage of the flexible schedules they currently enjoy.

Back to the Fox article

As of now, starting December 1, 2016, all state employees will be entitled to overtime if they earn up to $913 per week regardless of whether they have “executive, administrative, or professional” responsibilities.

State government estimates peg the number of workers impacted at a minimum of 500 and reaching into the thousands, per state.  Iowa projects its budget hit to be over $19 million, other states likely a lot more.

It’s a lot harder for government to get rid of employees than the private sector, and less ability to do things that limit costs. Since they are rarely in the business of providing products and/or service that generates revenue, their #1 option is to raise taxes to increase revenue. There’s another avenue available, as well

Not coincidentally, Nevada – through its Attorney General Adam Laxalt – is the lead plaintiff in this lawsuit.

In filing the suit Laxalt said: “This rule, pushed by distant bureaucrats in D.C., tramples on state and local government budgets, forcing states to shift money from other important programs to balance their budgets, including programs intended to protect the very families that purportedly benefit from such federal overreach.”

Barring new revenue, they would have to shift money, taken from the taxpayers, from programs and services that benefit the taxpayers into paying employees.  This is all the typical Obama overreach, from a guy who has barely ever worked in the private sector or had to hire and employ and pay people. He has no working knowledge of how the economy works.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: 21 States Sue Obama Over New Overtime Rules »

Michigan Student Punks Silly People With His Own Pronoun: “His Majesty”

Beating the nutjobs at their own game

(Fox News)  As Heat Street‘s Politics Editor Jillian Melchior reported this week, a new policy at the University of Michigan allows students to choose their preferred pronouns — including the gender-neutral “they” and “ze” — to appear on class rosters.

With that in mind, one conservative student, Grant Strobl, who is also chairman of the Young Americans for Freedom board of governors, decided to troll the university administration by officially requesting his pronoun to be changed to “His Majesty.”

Although Storbl says he has “no problem with students asking to be identified a certain way,” he thought it important to show just how ludicrous it is for universities to institutionalize the use of “arbitrary” pronouns and threaten disciplinary action if students and staff repeatedly fail to use them.

https://twitter.com/grantstrobl/status/781245613639868418

You can request that people call you whatever you want. However, Special Snowflakes need to remember that out in the real world, few will tolerate this silliness. And there will be no penalties like in the cloistered unreality of college.

Read: Michigan Student Punks Silly People With His Own Pronoun: “His Majesty” »

Pirate's Cove