Say, We Need To Get Rid Of This Choice Habit In Healthcare

By William Teach May 13, 2014 – 12:14 pm

Ed Morrissey calls this a monumental quote to remember in regards to how Ocare works

(NY Times) “We have to break people away from the choice habit that everyone has,” said Marcus Merz, the chief executive of PreferredOne, an insurer in Golden Valley, Minn., that is owned by two health systems and a physician group. “We’re all trying to break away from this fixation on open access and broad networks.”

Yeah, choice only seems to work for Lefties when it comes to aborting babies. Sister Toldjah notes

What’s this? Obamacare limits doctor and hospital options? Ya don’t say.

Hate to say we Toldjah So, NYT, but …

Heh! Let’s refer back to one of the best quotes ever on Ocare

Both of the California residents “vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama,” according to the San Jose Mercury News. They also both anticipated their rates would go up, just not so drastically.

“Of course, I want people to have health care, I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally,” Vinson said.

Waschura said he was “laughing” at House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republicans until he got his new rates in the mail.

Everything’s lollipops and unicorns till your healthcare gets blow’d up.

Read: Say, We Need To Get Rid Of This Choice Habit In Healthcare »

Posted in Healthcare, Wonky Media | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist Robert Samuelson: Say, We Don’t Really Have Solutions For “Climate Change”

By William Teach May 13, 2014 – 10:39 am

In what is one of his saner opinion pieces, Washington Post writer Robert Samuelson notes a few interesting things

Climate change: We have no solution yet

It would be healthy — in the sense of promoting honesty — if every report warning of global warming and climate change (the two terms are interchangeable) came with the following disclaimer:

Despite our belief that global warming poses catastrophic threats to many of the world’s 7 billion inhabitants, we acknowledge that we now lack the technologies to stop it. The purpose of our analysis and policy proposals is to create the political and economic conditions that foster the needed technologies. But there is no assurance that this will happen, and much time and money may be invested in futile and wasteful efforts.

(Warmist blather)

It’s useful for environmental groups to have global warming “deniers” (and, of course, behind them the sinister oil companies) as foils. The subliminal message is that once the views of these Neanderthals are swept away, we can adopt sensible policies to “do something” about global warming.

The reality is otherwise. The central truth for public policy is: We have no solution.

Of course, what he recommends is typical

My own oft-stated preference is for policies that might dampen global warming but would also address other problems. The most obvious idea is a carbon tax to help finance government and stimulate energy-saving technologies and new forms of non-carbon energy. If these technologies went global, the gap between rich and poor countries would narrow.

And there you go: more taxation, more Big Government. Standard boilerplate from the Cult Of Hotcoldwetdry. But, wait, it gets better, because those evil third worlders

Worse, almost all the projected increases in global emissions come from poorer countries, half from China alone. By contrast, U.S. emissions (and those of most rich nations) are projected to stay stable over the three decades. Economic growth is slowing; energy efficiency is increasing; and, in Japan and some European countries, populations are declining. Because poor countries understandably won’t abandon their efforts to relieve poverty, any further U.S. emissions cuts would probably be offset by gains in China and elsewhere. This dims their political and environmental appeal.

And there is another typical Warmist trope: those in developing countries must be forced to continue living a third world shithole life. Warmists know they already have theirs, and now want to deny others. I know what my recommendation is: Warmists should live the lives they want Everyone Else to live.

Read: Warmist Robert Samuelson: Say, We Don’t Really Have Solutions For “Climate Change” »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll Shows Majority Oppose Obama’s Contraception Mandate

By William Teach May 13, 2014 – 7:36 am

Perhaps Americans understand better than Team Obama that it is silly, patronizing, patriarchal, and could cause job loss

(Daily Caller) A majority of Americans — including a majority of women, independents, and young voters — oppose the contraception mandate created by Obamacare, according to a new poll set to be released Tuesday by the Family Research Council.

Fifty-three percent of likely U.S. voters oppose forcing employers to provide plans that various birth control methods, according to the poll, conducted earlier this month. Forty-three percent support doing so.

Just a note: that poll was been released on May 8th, and is available at the FRC website. It asked the question

Question:
As you may know, the President’s healthcare law contains the HHS mandate which requires that all private healthcare plans, including both employer based health plans and individual market health plans, cover preventative care services for women, which includes all FDA approved contraceptives, including drugs that can destroy a human embryo, and sterilization services without a direct cost to the patient. Employers that offer their employees’ healthcare plans that do not includes these drugs and services will be fined up to $100 per day per employee. Do you support or oppose this law?

40% strongly oppose, 26% strongly support.

Despite being a bargain for women, fifty percent of women oppose the mandate while only 45 percent support it, according to the poll, conducted by WPA Research on behalf of the conservative Family Research Council. Thirty-six percent of women strongly oppose the mandate, while 29 percent strongly support it.

Other groups that tend to support Democratic candidates oppose the mandate as well, according to the poll.

Forty-nine percent of adults between 18 and 44 years old oppose, and 47 percent support the mandate. Hispanics are split evenly on the issue, though slightly more in the heavily Democratic group strongly oppose the mandate than strongly support it.

FRC president Tony Perkins notes in the press release

“As the debate over the HHS mandate has played out in the media and the courts, Americans oppose the mandate because it puts the jobs, livelihoods, and healthcare of Americans at risk. It forces those who stand up for their conscience to choose between paying crippling fines that could shut down their business or dropping the healthcare of all their employees.

“Respecting freedom of conscience is a long-held American tradition and the government should not impose mandates or laws that force individuals and businesses to violate these beliefs just to hold a job, own a business, or have health insurance. This is a flawed mandate within a flawed law.

Let’s not forget, the contraception mandate was a creation of Team Obama, not the actual “Affordable” Care Act itself. There is no mention of any parts of the mandate within the law, in terms of any requirements. It was invented simply to patronize Democrats and women.

Read: Poll Shows Majority Oppose Obama’s Contraception Mandate »

Posted in Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bummer: New Paper Proclaims Doom From Antarctic Melt

By William Teach May 13, 2014 – 7:24 am

Of course it does. And, of course, the media itself has shifted into Dooooom! mode. Here’s the NY Times’ resident climahysteric, Justin Gillis, along with Kenneth Change

Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans From Polar Melt

A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun falling apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported on Monday. If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries.

Global warming caused by the human-driven release of greenhouse gases has helped to destabilize the ice sheet, though other factors may also be involved, the scientists said.

And there’s your “science”, folks. It was preconceived to Blame Humanity….say, how did the scientists get to Antarctica to study the ice? Fossil fuels, perhaps? They sure didn’t sail or swim.

The rise of the sea is likely to continue to be relatively slow for the rest of the 21st century, the scientists added, but in the more distant future it may accelerate markedly, potentially throwing society into crisis.

“This is really happening,” Thomas P. Wagner, who runs NASA’s programs on polar ice and helped oversee some of the research, said in an interview. “There’s nothing to stop it now. But you are still limited by the physics of how fast the ice can flow.” (snip)

Those six glaciers alone could cause the ocean to rise four feet as they disappear, Dr. Rignot said, possibly within a couple of centuries. He added that their disappearance will most likely destabilize other sectors of the ice sheet, so the ultimate rise could be triple that.

By a “couple centuries”, they mean somewhere in the range of 1000 years.

Thing is, did they even go to Antarctica to perform science? The abstract notes

We measure the grounding line retreat of glaciers draining the Amundsen Sea Embayment of West Antarctica using Earth Remote Sensing (ERS-1/2) satellite radar interferometry from 1992 to 2011.

That’s not even 9 years, nor does it take into account the growth of the rest of Antarctic ice. We’ve been told again and again that a pause of 17+ years is too short to be a trend. Now, Warmists are trumping this study as doom.

In fact, the trends, per RSS, for Antarctica show that the areas where sea ice form are flatlined since 1980, and Antarctica overall shows a statistically insignificant rise since 1980. And, as Anthony Watts further notes

A lot can happen in several centuries, why even in the last couple of years Antarctic has seen  record levels on Antarctic sea ice.

A lot can happen, and, realistically, there is nothing unusual about some melting at the poles during a warm period, which have occurred off and on since the end of the last glacial age.

Scientists said the ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because relatively warm water that occurs naturally in the depths of the ocean was being pulled to the surface by an intensification, over the past several decades, of the powerful winds that encircle Antarctica.

Hooray, those are two of the blames Warmists have been pushing, mostly to find a way to deflect criticism that warming has essentially stopped for over 17 years. Interestingly, the release seems to coincide with the IPCC report, which also talks about “corks being released”, though the IPCC report talks in terms of 2,000-10,000 years.

Anyhow, Warmists, there’s your cue: give up all use of fossil fuels to save Antarctica.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Bummer: New Paper Proclaims Doom From Antarctic Melt »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Will Derrick Ward Be Next On Progressive Truth Squad Hit List Over Michael Sam Tweet?

By William Teach May 12, 2014 – 2:15 pm

On the bright side, the neither the NFL nor any team can do anything to him, since he retired

(NJ.com) Former Giants running back Derrick Ward wasn’t the only person on Twitter commenting about new Rams rookie Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend after hearing from St. Louis. He also wasn’t the only one who was critical.

Here’s what the Super Bowl winner wrote:

Many have been trashing Ward for *GASP* holding a non-compliant opinion. Now, let’s look at what happened to Miami Dolphins player Don Jones

Miami Dolphins defensive back Don Jones was fined an undisclosed amount and suspended from team activities in the wake of two tweets Jones sent out that were critical of Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend (note: I cleaned up a bunch of misspellings, something that sadly occurs quite a bit on NJ.com)

“We were disappointed to read Don’s tweets during the NFL Draft,” Dolphins coach Joe Philbin said in a statement that announced the suspension. “They were inappropriate and unacceptable, and we regret the negative impact these comments had on such an important weekend for the NFL.”

Jones — who has since made his Twitter account private — will be allowed to rejoin the team once he completes “educational training.”

Jones tweeted out “omg” as the video of Sam embracing his boyfriend, Vito, aired on ESPN after the St. Louis Rams selected Sam — the first openly gay NFL prospect — in the seventh round. Jones then responded “horrible” when asked if the first tweet was in reference to Sam.

Got that? Suspended and forced to undergo “educational training” for holding an opinion, as well as apologize. Granted, the Fins can do what they want, it is a private company. Erik Erickson is correct when he wrote (several times) that You Will Be Made To Care.

One would think that the Dolphins would have more important concerns. They haven’t broken .500 in the last 5 seasons. They’ve made the playoffs just 3 times since 2000, after Dan Marino retired. Six plus .500 seasons from 2000 through 2013. They haven’t won a playoff game since 2000. Six different head coaches from 2004 forward. Issues with QB’s since Marino retired. Quick, name a high profile Fins player! But, hey, mean tweet. #priorities.

Read: Will Derrick Ward Be Next On Progressive Truth Squad Hit List Over Michael Sam Tweet? »

Posted in Liberal World, Sports | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 12, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible energy sucking refrigerator, putting out greenhouse gases that negatively affect maple syrup, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Sweetness and Light, with a post on the moment sports changed forever.

Read: If All You See… »

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

“Climate change is about justifying bigger government”

By William Teach May 12, 2014 – 10:21 am

As I noted the other day, more and more people seem to be noticing the reasons behind the “climate change” movement, something I’ve been blogging about for years. When people ask why I concentrate on the political aspects (and insanity): because that’s what it is. It’s not science. Here’s a letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

I have to wonder what type of evidence would convince climate alarmists that they are wrong. We have global and Antarctic sea ice areas that are at near-record highs for the date. We’ve had no global warming for almost two decades. Remember the predictions of increased severe weather? They just haven’t come true; in fact, Obama’s presidency has had the fewest hurricanes of any presidency. We’ve gone nine years without a major (category 3-5) hurricane strike, which is the longest period on record. Northern Hemisphere winter snow cover over the past 10 years was the highest of any decade on record. These are all easily verifiable facts. Perhaps by “climate change,” global warming scientists meant that we’d actually see colder weather, more snowfall and fewer hurricanes?

Wake up and smell the coffee. Climate change is about justifying bigger government and more intrusion into your lives, something progressives (formerly know as liberals) have wanted since the turn of the last century. If it really was about saving the planet, the scientists would admit that 95 percent of their climate models and dire predictions have been wrong over the past several decades. They’d also be willing to consider that there may be other factors beyond our control that have a much greater impact on our climate. I don’t know, could it be the sun? Could it be that the earth has gone through global warming and global cooling cycles for millions of years (even before we started burning fossil fuels)?

Facts are pesky things to Warmists. And Jim Craig has hit the nail on the head. This is what “climate change” is about. Another letter in the same paper notes that “climate change” results in lots of government funding.

Read: “Climate change is about justifying bigger government” »

Posted in Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Senator Rand Paul Wants To See The Drone Memos

By William Teach May 12, 2014 – 8:55 am

No matter what your opinion of Senator Paul, you do have to admire that when he goes after an issue, he doesn’t just trump it then forget it. Ever since his filibuster on drones, of which he wrote that it was just the beginning, he’s continued with the subject. He cares heavily on the subject of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Privacy and 4th amendment rights are important to him. He’s sued Obama over NSA spying on Americans. And here is on drones again

(NY Times) I BELIEVE that killing an American citizen without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate. I can’t imagine appointing someone to the federal bench, one level below the Supreme Court, without fully understanding that person’s views concerning the extrajudicial killing of American citizens.

But President Obama is seeking to do just that. He has nominated David J. Barron, a Harvard law professor and a former acting assistant attorney general, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

While he was an official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Barron wrote at least two legal memos justifying the execution without a trial of an American citizen abroad. Now Mr. Obama is refusing to share that legal argument with the American people. (snip)

I believe that all senators should have access to all of these opinions. Furthermore, the American people deserve to see redacted versions of these memos so that they can understand the Obama administration’s legal justification for this extraordinary exercise of executive power. The White House may invoke national security against disclosure, but legal arguments that affect the rights of every American should not have the privilege of secrecy.

I have to agree with him on that point, and it is something that even honest Leftists have noted: what are the legal justifications for drone striking an American citizen in another country over their links to terrorism? Some have gone further, wondering whether those same legal justifications can be applied here in the United States.

The Bill of Rights is clear. The Fifth Amendment provides that no one can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Sixth Amendment provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury,” as well as the right to be informed of all charges and have access to legal counsel. These are fundamental rights that cannot be waived with a presidential pen.

In battle, combatants engaged in war against America get no due process and may lawfully be killed. But citizens not in a battlefield, however despicable, are guaranteed a trial by our Constitution.

True. But

Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen who was subject to a kill order from Mr. Obama, and was killed in 2011 in Yemen by a missile fired from a drone. I don’t doubt that Mr. Awlaki committed treason and deserved the most severe punishment. Under our Constitution, he should have been tried — in absentia, if necessary — and allowed a legal defense. If he had been convicted and sentenced to death, then the execution of that sentence, whether by drone or by injection, would not have been an issue.

That’s where it breaks down a bit. Anwar al-Awlaki was fighting on the modern battlefield of Islamic jihad. Does he deserve a trial? What about his right to confront his accusers? Rather hard to do that when tried in absentia. One can’t argue with Senator Paul’s passion, though.

But this new legal standard does not apply merely to a despicable human being who wanted to harm the United States. The Obama administration has established a legal justification that applies to every American citizen, whether in Yemen, Germany or Canada.

And that is the scary part. And the reason we need to see the memos regarding drone strikes on American citizens. We need to see the legal justification. This need not be a hardcore political dogfight. I’m on the fence when it comes to “droning” Americans who have joined terrorist groups overseas, essentially taking up arms against the United States. According to the Geneva Convention, people who fight in no uniforms can be whacked without any thought. However, there are still the protections of the Constitution, which do not stop for Americans not in domestic territory.

Read: Senator Rand Paul Wants To See The Drone Memos »

Posted in GOP, War On Terrorism | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Politico: You Know, You Silly Benghazi Believers….

By William Teach May 12, 2014 – 8:15 am

There’s been quite a few complaints that the news media, which is mostly left leaning and Democrat voters, have refused to do their jobs on Benghazi. There have been a few intrepid and dogged reporters, yet, for the most part, it has been more about defending Team Obama and attacking citizens who just want answers. Here comes another that perfectly encapsulates the problems, as written by Politico’s Lauren French

The world of Benghazi believers

Hillary Clinton passed on the Sunday shows after the Benghazi attacks to preserve her White House aspirations.

The White House is covering up for political reasons why President Barack Obama wasn’t in the Situation Room as the attacks were unfolding.

And there are reasons CNN can track down the masterminds behind the 2012 ambush but the U.S. government can’t.

These are just a sampling of the doggedly held views of a die-hard cadre of Republican lawmakers about the controversial events that led to the death 20 months ago of four Americans in Benghazi — a word that is now synonymous for conservatives with cover-up and conspiracy.

Call them the Benghazi believers.

These Republicans — and there are dozens — are deeply convinced that the truth has yet to be fully aired about the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The blog post essentially attempts to say that tons of details have already come out and Republicans are nuts for continuing to dwell on the issue. And, it is a blog post. Lauren French is, like so many others in the major media who write on the subject, a reporter. Her bio shows she is a Congress reporter for Politico, and has worked as a reporter in several areas since she graduated from George Washington University in 2012 with a degree in journalism. Yet, there is no reporting in the article. It is a rehash of Benghazi, lite on details, long on subtly attacking Republicans and Conservatives who just want to know the truth. Flip it around: had this happened under a Republican president, Lauren and her compadres would be asking questions, digging, looking for The Truth.

I’ve seen lots and lots of theories regarding Benghazi. Some seem pretty far out there. Doug Ross posted one the other day, that, as he says, turns out to be less and less insane every day. Where does The Truth lie? When the 9/11 Truthers started their conspiracy theories, people came and knocked them down with facts. Reporters, scientists, military members, engineers, etc, got out there and investigated. Here, liberal reporters and news outlets have abrogated their responsibility to investigate, instead, they’ve taken the Democrat line, and turned into bloggers with a political view. Did Ms. French do any investigation on her own, or simply go “hey, let’s attack Republicans and Conservatives, make them look crazy”? All we want is the truth.

I suspect that, at the end of the day, this was all about incompetence and political spin. When it comes to Team Obama, don’t assign anything nefarious or complicated to what has been the norm for Team Obama: incompetence, a weak work ethic, shiny object policies, making everything hyper-political, obfuscation, a lack of transparency, spin after failure, old fashioned cover-ups.

If the president’s name were Bush or Reagan, we would long ago have had a minute-by-minute accounting of his every move. And if the incident involved some faraway American warrior’s slaying of a jihadist emir, we would long ago have had a Situation Room photo depicting Obama as maestro . . . with an accompanying soundtrack of classified leaks portraying his courage while others were under fire. Andrew C. McCarthy

Few, if any, left-leaning reporters care about the answer to the question. There is little interest to all the questions surrounding Benghazi. Why was security denied multiple times? Why was Ambassador Stevens there on 9/11? Why was no military help sent? Why was there no extra security on that day, despite multiple credible threats? Why the “it was a video” spin? Western Journalism has 50 questions. One of them is “Why have no suspects been arrested for the attack?” A real news organization would be looking for answers.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Politico: You Know, You Silly Benghazi Believers…. »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Journalistic Malpractice | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Michael Sam Taken 249th, Complains Not Taken High Enough

By William Teach May 11, 2014 – 6:58 pm

A bit of a follow up to yesterday’s post on Michael Sam

(CBS Sportsline) Former Missouri defensive end Michael Sam became the first openly gay player in NFL history to be drafted when the Rams took him with the 249th pick on Saturday, but Sam almost didn’t make history because he almost fell out of the draft.

Sam was taken with the eighth-to-last pick, meaning he almost wasn’t drafted at all, something he found rather shocking. The NFL’s first openly gay player said he should’ve been picked higher.

“From last season alone, I should’ve been in the first three rounds — SEC Defensive player of the year, All-American,” Sam said, listing off his 2013 accomplishments, via the Rams official website.

There were a few teams who expressed interest in signing him if not drafted, but, one has to wonder about the comment. Is this just standard whining, or is he complaining that he wasn’t picked higher because he’s gay? Scrolling through the comments, most are seeing this as an entitlement mentality, a problem waiting to happen (in terms of if he gets cut, doesn’t play enough, and the media circus, among others, which will be blamed on anti-gay bigotry), and that he should be happy he was drafted. Here’s a perfect one

This is a big warning flag about Michael Sam.  There is no reason he should have that sense of entitlement.  He should be glad to be drafted and go out there and earn his money, not bitching already about how low he was drafted.  Had he waited to come out until after the draft, he probably would have gone a bit higher but a lot of teams don’t want the media circus that comes with Sam.  Couple that with a less than inspiring combine and he should count himself lucky to be drafted at all.

Jazz Shaw calls Sam an albatross wrapped around the Rams’ neck, especially since players drafted in the 7th round have an 8% chance of starting or having a durable position. Sam was an outstanding college level player. But, what for the NFL? Most are less than enthused about his skills, size, speed, and agility. He has the mental makeup. But, then, Tebow had the strength, durability, leadership, agility, size. What he didn’t have was the decision making and accuracy to be an NFL caliber QB. And the media circus did not help. He would have made a great tight end. Perhaps Sam would be better at Safety. Tebow refused to adapt. Will Sam?

Read: Michael Sam Taken 249th, Complains Not Taken High Enough »

Posted in Sports | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove