GOP Release Obamacare Replacement Plan

By William Teach February 5, 2015 – 7:55 am

Democrats and their 90% Liberal media partners have long complained that the GOP has no plan to replace Obamacare. Well, two points: first, why is it necessary to have a plan to replace a bad plan? Second, the GOP actually has several different plans to replace Ocare, and have never been able to get together to craft a full replacement plan. Most of the plans are actually pretty close in content, so this may be the starting point to craft a full GOP legislative replacement piece, now that the GOP controls both branches of Congress

(Fox News) Congressional Republicans are unveiling what they say is a new plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare, but the ‘blueprint,’ as they call it, looks an awful lot like what’s been floated before.

The Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment – or CARE – Act was crafted by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich.

The first bicameral proposal of the 114th Congress calls for the outright repeal of President Obama’s signature health care law, and with that, the individual mandate to buy insurance or pay a fine.

It provides for targeted tax credits to individuals and families up to 300 percent above the poverty line to encourage people to buy plans in the market place.

It also allows insurers to sell plans across state lines and caps the amount of monetary damages that can be awarded in medical malpractice litigation.

Like the Affordable Care Act, dependents are able to stay on their parents’ healthcare plans until they’re 26, and no one can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions – although this plan calls for a specific ‘continuous coverage’ protection where individuals moving from one plan to another cannot be denied.

There are many more parts to this. I’d recommend reading the article in full, as well as the link to “proposal” in the excerpt, which leads to the press release.

One thing noticeably absent are nationwide insurance pools, which, at a minimum, should be allowed to create pools for individuals and small businesses in order to bring down costs, making sure that there are quite a few healthy people to offset those who aren’t.

Much of it is still about government empowerment, which is a main complaint about Ocare. However, it moves much of that power to State government choice, which is a good thing.

It would also “reduce distortions in the tax code that drive up health care costs”, such as “cap the exclusion of an employee’s employer-provided health coverage”.

There would be “targeted tax credits to help buy health care” for small business and individuals”.

It does away with mandates and most of the noxious issues with Obamacare.

If these proposals sound familiar it’s because most of them are. Many are based on an outline pitched last year by Burr, Hatch, and former Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

“One of the reasons that you don’t see massive changes is we thought we had a decent product last year based on feedback as we’ve talked with governors, with industry,” an aide familiar with the plan said. “A lot of industry frankly thinks this is a very durable sustainable, credible alternative from a market perspective, and they think it’s operationally viable.”

If the ideas are viable, why come up with new ones? Of course, we probably should not expect a massive push anytime soon

“Let’s all be realistic, the president, who the law is named after, he’s not repealing his bill. So what we are doing is putting a very credible idea out there because what our bosses were sick and tired of hearing is the Republicans have no ideas,” one aide said.

I suspect that we’ll probably start seeing this truly debated in the House and Senate sometime either between late spring 2016 and September 2016, that way the plan is detailed in full, and ready to pass if a Republican wins the White House. Personally, I think the GOP should craft the full legislation now and vote on it. Have it ready to go.

The original idea of Ocare was a good way: finding a way to make it so the tens of millions without health insurance were able to obtain health insurance. From there, it degenerated into the monstrosity we see now. Health insurance reform is a good idea. Involving the Central Government so much in our private lives regarding not just health insurance, but health care, is a Bad Idea.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: GOP Release Obamacare Replacement Plan »

Posted in GOP, Healthcare | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Do You Know What The Key to Stopping “Climate Change” Is? Birth Control

By William Teach February 4, 2015 – 4:33 pm

Of course, when Warmists are talking about birth control, they’re mostly aiming this at 3rd world nations comprised of “minorities”, because, let’s face it, Warmists, with their Progressive leanings, are bigots and racists, love the thought of eugenics, and, let’s not forget that they really love abortion on demand, which is part of what they consider to be “birth control”

Experts Say Birth Control Access Key To Curbing Climate Change

In Pakistan, where just a third of married women use contraception, half of all pregnancies – 4.2 million each year – are unintended, according to the Washington-based Population Reference Bureau.

At the same time, the rising population in Pakistan – and elsewhere around the world – is creating more climate-changing emissions and putting more people in the path of extreme weather, food and water shortages, and other climate change pressures.

That suggests that giving more women who want it access to birth control to limit their family size – in both rich and poor countries – could be a hugely effective way to curb climate change and to build greater resilience to its impacts, according to population and climate change researchers and policy experts.

Of course, don’t call this “population control”, which it is

“We’re not talking about population control. We’re talking about giving people the choice to limit their family size and all the good things that go on from that” such as better health and education, said Baroness Jennny Tonge, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, during an event at the UK Parliament Monday on linking population and climate issues.

Huh. Looks like population control, which has long been a big thing with Progressives, and now they use “climate change” to continue pushing it.

Still, an international coalition of experts on climate change, family planning and development aid are now pushing for universal access to family planning to be recognized as a part of “climate-compatible development” and included in new U.N.-backed Sustainable Development Goals set to be agreed in September.

In other words, they want people in productive nations to pay for the birth control of people in non-productive nations.

Some countries, such as Ethiopia, already have included family planning among the activities they want to undertake on climate change, using international climate finance, according to an analysis by the London-based Population and Sustainability Network.

“They themselves identified population as a factor making it more difficult for them to adapt. We in the north are worried about, ‘Is it fair to make this connection?’ when people in the south are already making it,” said Karen Newman, coordinator of the network.

What makes it difficult is that Ethiopia is poor place to live when it comes to infrastructure, business climate, and agriculture. And a growing Islamic extremist population.

Family planning could potentially find a funding source in the Green Climate Fund, which was established as part of U.N.-led climate talks and which will later this year and early next begin its first distributions of about $10 billion in funds donated to help poor countries adapt to climate change impacts or adopt a lower-emission development path.

“Donated” is another word for “taken from taxpayers in productive nations and given to non-productive nations, referred to as “developing nations”, which never seem to develop”.

Read: Do You Know What The Key to Stopping “Climate Change” Is? Birth Control »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 4, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle which should be restricted for Everyone Else, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Right Wing News, with a post on humorous hate mail.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Awesome: More Illustrations Of “Climate Change” Doom

By William Teach February 4, 2015 – 10:33 am

You have to admire Warmists: they just never ever give up. Of course, there is that whole bat guano insane aspect (FYI: the inability to use proper capitalization is a function of the website, not me)

evgeny kazantsev forecasts the effects of cataclysmic climate change

the world as we’ve never seen it before — evgeny kazantsev presents a surreal look at what our cities and surroundings might look like in catastrophic conditions. the series imagines a pattern of extreme weather changes, forcing the earth’s natural and urban landscapes into ruin and disrepair. beloved landmarks, towns and touristic sites are afflicted by heat waves, ice storms and droughts, leaving each in a state of decay and degeneration.

kazantsev envisages venice’s world-celebrated canals without water, leaving a sad scene of abandoned gondolas at the bottom of an empty waterway; unusually warm conditions sees an alpine town without any sign of snow, the unfortunate scene unfolding from a lone tram car descending down the moistureless mountainside; beachgoers appear to find the sight of a mammoth glacier sitting just off the sandy shores an ordinary circumstance. ‘cataclysm happens’ — made for burjui design bureau and their client, gefest insurance company – sheds an unnerving light on the potential for natural disaster, and uncovers the alarming scenarios if such havoc were to ensue.

Let’s look at a few, shall we?

Wait, I thought Warmists were saying that Venice would be flooded from Hotcoldwetdry?

Apparently, the world will look like The Birds.

Actually, it’s much, much worse. The article make the case (there seems to be no captions or writing to go with the photos at the painter’s website) that “weather patterns force a flocks of birds to loose track of their directional pull”. Seriously. Are they making the case that “climate change” will mess with the Earth’s magnetic force?

There’s also one of Niagara Falls frozen from….wait, too much heat?

Read: Awesome: More Illustrations Of “Climate Change” Doom »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Ferguson Police Look To Roll Out Non-Lethal Methods

By William Teach February 4, 2015 – 7:39 am

Perhaps they should consider instead why so many in communities like Ferguson are violent and lawless

(Washington Post) About a month after a white officer fatally shot an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., the city’s assistant police chief, Al Eickhoff, took to Google and searched under the words “less lethal.”

Huh. It’s like there was no reason for the shooting. No mention of Michael Brown attacking a store clerk, stealing cigars, walking illegally in the middle of the street, attacking said police officer, trying to take the officer’s gun, running away briefly, then charging the officer. Context matters.

Eickhoff, a 36-year veteran of Missouri police work, said he was looking for any new device, weapon or ammunition — any alternative to lethal force — that might have prevented a deadly result when Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson encountered each other in the noonday heat last August.

Browsing a California company’s Web site, Eickhoff found pictures and videos of an odd-looking, blaze-orange device docked on a normal handgun barrel. When a bullet fired, it melded with an attached projectile the size of a ping-pong ball that flew with enough force to knock a person down, maybe break some ribs, but not kill him, the product’s makers said — even at close range.

Its name: the Alternative.

The Ferguson PD is planning on arming all its officers with the Alternative.

But others consider the product dangerous because officers must take time — if only a few seconds — to remove it from their belts and affix it to a service weapon. That “exposes police officers to greater risk” and “turns policy on its head,” said Steve Ijames, a former Springfield, Mo., police major and training expert.

“I am all about less lethal,” he said. “What bothers me is we will allow an officer to face immediate deadly jeopardy with a less-lethal round. Deadly force is the most likely thing to repel deadly force.”

It’s not a bad idea, and it will certainly have its uses. There are times when an officer has the time to affix it.

Of course, after they’ve fired that first shot, then what? There are many times where people have been shot multiple times and keep going. Michael Brown did.

Question: Could this thing have saved Brown? After a ruminative pause, Eickhoff offered that if Wilson’s fusillade of gunfire didn’t stop Brown, it’s not likely that a single-shot blunt-force projectile would have. “You could still shoot him with this round,” the assistant police chief said, “and he could still get up and come at you.”

Huh. That tidbit comes as the last paragraph of the article.

Actually, it’s a bulbous metal alloy bullet-capture device that travels up to 250 feet per second (when propelled by a 9mm slug) and sends “a shock wave of pain through the suspect” when it hits, Ellis said. Effective to a range of 30 feet, the Alternative incapacitates a person but would very rarely penetrate the skin, he said, citing ballistics tests using leather chamois, foam and gel to simulate the human body. All tests were conducted at a range of five feet from muzzle to target.

There are good points and bad points. If police can have less lethal methods, great. It will certainly save lots of problems for police officers who have to deal with taking a life, even if said life is a criminal scumbag looking to harm an/or kill the officer or someone else. Unfortunately, so often an officer has no time to attack the Alternative when they are pulling their service weapon, with unfortunate tragedies occurring at times. Like when someone aims a fake gun at officers, and there is no way in the moment to see that it is a toy gun.

Bob Owens is less than impressed.

You can see how it works here.

One question I have is whether the “ball” that captures the bullet and hits the perp is reusable. Because the units cost around $45 each. Much less than a life snuffed out by accident in certain circumstances, of course.

Read: Ferguson Police Look To Roll Out Non-Lethal Methods »

Posted in Current Affairs | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Jordan Executes 2 Islamists After ISIS Releases Video Of Pilot Burned To Death

By William Teach February 4, 2015 – 6:50 am

Barbarism demands a response

(UK Daily Mail) Jordan has executed two ISIS-linked prisoners, including a would-be female suicide bomber, it has been revealed this morning.

The executions, at about 4am local time today, came just hours after Islamic State militants released a sickening video showing a captured Jordanian fighter pilot being burned alive in a cage.

Jordan had vowed a swift and lethal response and government officials this morning revealed that two prisoners, Sajida al-Rishawi and Ziad al-Karbouli, have already been hanged.

Al-Rishawi had been on death row for her role in a triple hotel bombing in the Jordanian capital Amman in 2005 that killed dozens.

The executions took place after gruesome footage emerged showing Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh being torched to death by his captors.

The article has an interesting sidebar piece about ISIS

The latest murder by Islamic State terrorists represents a new level of barbarity from a group notorious for its savagery.

As with previous beheading videos, footage of Moaz al-Kasasbeh’s murder is characterised by its slick production values and graphics.

But unlike the others, it contains an added cinematic dimension clearly designed to achieve heightened impact – as if the horror of burning alive wasn’t enough.

ISIS blames the fighter pilot for burning houses and killing babies with airstrikes before he was captured in December.

The manner of his death is a symbolic show of strength to strike terror into ‘non-believers’ and encourage doubters within their ranks.

The pictures are brutal, and I personally want nothing to do with watching the video. I’d recommend that those who utterly refuse to condemn the hardcore version of Islam that ISIS practices to take a gander, though. But, then, nothing else has seemed to change the minds of these Leftists. Not how the extremist view of Islam treats women. Not how they treat gays. Not how they stop free speech. Nothing.

Anyhow, of course there are those who complain that executing jihadist prisoners will bring more atrocities from ISIS. Newsflash: Islamists will carry out atrocities and attacks regardless.

Even Piers Morgan gets it: PIERS MORGAN: Watching ISIS burn a man alive was the most abominable thing I have ever seen – and any Muslim who won’t stand up to these barbarians must watch it too

Other headlines at the UK Daily Mail

What will it take to wake Leftists up? Interestingly, they’re more than willing to blame the entire Christian religion for the actions of a few, even though said actions are rarely done in the name of God. Yet, they seem to take the opinion that any condemnation of hardcore Islam, practiced in the name of Allah and Mohammed, is an unacceptable condemnation of all of Islam. No, it isn’t. What will it take to convince Leftists?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Jordan Executes 2 Islamists After ISIS Releases Video Of Pilot Burned To Death »

Posted in RoP | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama’s Unserious Budget Is Still Mostly About Creating A Fight

By William Teach February 3, 2015 – 4:30 pm

I’ve already mentioned several times that Obama’s proposed budget is primarily about creating a fight with not just Congressional Republicans, but all Republicans. More proof

(Politico) Obama is using the budget to challenge Republicans on middle-class issues, as well as national security funding. He made his budget pitch during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security, where he warned Republicans that they’ll undermine the nation’s security and hurt the federal workers who work at those agencies — including the Border Patrol, airport screeners, law enforcement officials, the Coast Guard and the Secret Service — if they don’t send him a “clean” funding bill that doesn’t try to block his immigration executive actions.

“Don’t jeopardize our national security over this disagreement,” Obama said. “These Americans aren’t just working to keep us safe – they have to take care of their own families. The notion that they would get caught up in a disagreement around policy that has nothing to do with them makes no sense.”

Obama said the sequestration cuts have been bad for economic growth and national security, and warned: “I’m not going to accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward … I will not accept a budget that severs the vital link between our national security and our economic security.”

That kind of rhetoric from Obama, particularly the “I’m not going to accept…”, is language designed to create strife, not language designed to come to agreement.

Republicans wasted no time rejecting Obama’s budget. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called it “another top-down, backward-looking document that caters to powerful political bosses on the Left and never balances—ever.” House Speaker John Boehner said it “would impose new taxes and more spending without a responsible plan to honestly address the big challenges facing our country.”

And Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, in a joint statement, declared that “a proposal that never balances is not a serious plan for America’s fiscal future.”

Here’s what Republicans should do: don’t say anything about Obama’s proposed budget (which was on time for a first), other than that they will take a look at it in committee. Do not allow themselves to get into the partisan fight Obama desperately wants. And then, while they would be tempted to simply table the budget, instead, take it, tear it apart, keep the normal budget stuff, perhaps raising some and lowering others, along with ideas they can agree with, and strip out all the poison pills. Then put it up for a vote. If Obama and Democrats complain, simply say “hey, most of these ideas and funding measures are Obama’s idea. Is he complaining about his own ideas?” Turn it around.

But don’t get caught in the fight Obama wants. You can’t win. Not when he has the presidential bully pulpit and the majority of the U.S. media behind him.

Read: Obama’s Unserious Budget Is Still Mostly About Creating A Fight »

Posted in Barry Obama, GOP, Politics | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 3, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible carbon unfriendly dog causing the seas to rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post wondering what happened to the last $3 trillion.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Continue Meme Of Heat Causing More Snow

By William Teach February 3, 2015 – 10:19 am

You’ve heard and read this before, both here and at other sites. Originally, Warmists were proclaiming that snow would be a thing of the past, that school kids wouldn’t know what snow is. When that backfired, they changed and said that snow, especially big snow storms, would increase because of “climate change”. They’ve done the same thing with tropical storm activity and cold snaps. Because “science”, you know, whereby science has become feelings and political based

When global warming means more snow

Yes, this is by Climatologist Keven Trenberth. The same one who wrote in the Climategate emails “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

As (I assume he means “At”) first glance, asking whether global warming results in more snow may seem like a silly question because obviously, if it gets warm enough, there is no snow. Consequently, deniers of climate change have used recent snow dumps to cast doubt on a warming climate from human influences. Yet they could not be more wrong.

To understand the connection, we need to look at what conditions make for the heaviest snowfalls. Then, we can look at how climate change is affecting those conditions, especially temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans, during winters. Studying these factors reveals that there is a higher chance of heavy snow storms in North America but the length of the snow season is already shrinking due to global warming.

In other words, Trenberth is going to go through some extreme machinations to say that human caused global warming is causing it to be snowier now. He yammers on about “Goldilocks temperatures”, “more moisture” (debunked), and then we get to

The environment in which all storms form is now different than it was just 30 or 40 years ago because of global warming. Changes in atmospheric composition from human activities have increased carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, with carbon dioxide level increasing by over 40 percent since about 1900 mainly from burning fossil fuels.

Interesting. It was quite snowy during the cooling of the 40’s through the late 70’s. It was also snowy during the previous pause. It was also snowy during the big warm period of the 1930’s. It was certainly snowy during the Little Ice Age and the last glacial age. Are we to assume that it was super warm during those periods which caused the snow and cold?

Oh, and what fossil fuels usage caused the snowy periods during the Little Ice Age, Dark Ages, other Holocene cool periods, the last glacial period, heck, Snowball Earth? This is a political argument from Trenberth and the Warmists designed to continue to prop up their anti-science beliefs.

Read: Warmists Continue Meme Of Heat Causing More Snow »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

ISIS Throws Another Gay Man From Roof, Stoned To Death When Survives

By William Teach February 3, 2015 – 7:18 am

Here’s your Religion of Peace

(UK Daily Mail) A man has reportedly been blindfolded and thrown off a tower block in Syria for ‘being gay’ before being stoned to death after surviving the fall.

New images have emerged appearing to show ISIS militants hurling the man off the seven-storey building in the town of Tal Abyad in Raqqa.

The man, who was supposedly being punished for having a ‘homosexual affair’, apparently survived the fall, but was stoned to death by a waiting crowd at the foot of the tower block.

Here’s what’s amazing to me: ISIS and the other hardcore Islamists are virulently anti-gay. Liberals, though, can barely, if ever, take it upon themselves to oppose the Islamists in any fashion. U.S. Conservatives, though, are continuously slammed as a whole for any opposition to gay marriage, which 99.9999% of the time is peaceful. Islamists throw them from roofs. Hang them. Stone them. Jail them. Yet, not a peep from Liberals who are supposedly pro-gay.

Why? Good question. Liberals seem to be mostly incapable of condemning the actions and beliefs of the Islamists; instead, they do all they can to protect the entire Muslim religion, using many strawman arguments. One of my favorite new ones is that the hardcore violent Islamists are only 1% of the entire Muslim population. If we’re saying that there are 1.6 billion Muslims, that means 16 million are violent jihadis.

Of course, there are plenty of opinion polls showing the number of Muslims whom approve of violent attacks. They may not perform them themselves, but they are A-OK with them. And like them. And want them to happen. Yet, Leftists here in the U.S. and throughout the 1st World go to great pains to not use any harsh words against Muslims, and even go so far as to say that groups like ISIS are “no Islamic”. The only reason I can think of is that Leftist’s have a kneejerk reaction to any issue those on the Right are concerned about, so, Leftists have to take a 99.99% opposite reaction. Or, perhaps, they are just scared to condemn a religion which tends to react in a violent manner to any criticism.

During the same month, ISIS – also known as Islamic State or ISIL – released a document on social media, explaining the rules of its ‘penal code’, which is being brutally enforced across ISIS-held territory in Syria and Iraq.

Entitled ‘Clarification [regarding] the Hudud’, the document contains a list of the punishments handed out for crimes committed in the Islamic State, in accordance with the extremist group’s radical interpretation of Shariah law.

All punishments are carried out after a ‘trial’ at an Islamic State court and, after the sentencing, the prisoner is taken into the centre of the town or city.

All forms of blasphemy against Islam are punished by execution, even if the accuser chooses to repent of their sins. Likewise, committing murder, spying, apostasy or sodomy is punished by immediate death.

Anyone found guilty of banditry, specifically murder and stealing, is put to death by crucifixion.

According to Islamic State’s reading of Shariah law, thieves have a hand cut off. It is unclear whether the victim can choose which hand is removed.

Flogging is another common punishment carried out under Islamic State.

According to the document, 80 lashes of the whip is given to anyone who drinks alcohol or is found guilty of committing slander. Normally the whipping is not carried out on bare skin.

The punishment of stoning, where heavy rocks are thrown or piled on top of the victim, is ordered for any married man or woman who has committed adultery.

A hundreds lashes and immediate exile is given to any man or woman who has sex outside of marriage.

I anticipate Leftists immediately attempting to turn this around and condemn Conservatives, perhaps using the talking point that Conservatives believe the same things, mostly in an attempt to deflect the subject matter away from hardcore Islam. This is what they do. They just can’t seem to find it in themselves to condemn a brutal, repressive, violent, regressive subsection of Islam, which continues to spread their hardcore religious beliefs throughout the world, turning more and more Muslims to their Islamist ways.

Leftists have apparently decided that they’d rather ignore the plight of gays and women within the Islamist world, that they’d rather protect the Islamists over the danger to women and gays.

Read: ISIS Throws Another Gay Man From Roof, Stoned To Death When Survives »

Posted in Liberal World, RoP | 15 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove