Kay Hagan Is Bummed About Those Medicare Cuts She Voted For

By William Teach February 21, 2014 – 7:24 am

She and other vulnerable Democrats finally realized that their Obamacare votes have consequences, so they wrote a letter (via NRO)

(NRSC) Hagan’s ObamaCare “enacted $200 Billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage over 10 years”

  • In 2009, Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) promised North Carolinians who depend on Medicare that she was going to “protect Medicare” and that they would “not see a drop in their Medicare coverage.”
  • But in 2010 Kay Hagan voted to slash Medicare Advantage to pay for ObamaCare. (H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #72: Motion agreed to 56-42: R 0-40; D 54-2; I 2-0, 3/24/10, Hagan Voted Yea)
  • In North Carolina 463,159 seniors depend on Medicare Advantage plans (28% of all Medicare enrollees).
  • According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, in North Carolina, seniors on Medicare Advantage plans experienced cost increases and benefit cuts of an estimated $50-60 per month as a result of this year’s 6 percent cut to the program due to ObamaCare.
  • Now, as North Carolina seniors are being crushed under the weight of ObamaCare and as her own poll numbers plummet, Kay Hagan admits in a letter to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid that she cut Medicare for seniors after promising North Carolinians that they wouldn’t “see a drop in their Medicare coverage”
  • Hagan’s letter reads: “We write to raise serious concerns about the Medicare Advantage (MA) 2015 rate notice and the impact further cuts may have on the millions of individuals enrolled in the program,” the senators write. “We are strongly committed to preserving the high quality health plan choices and benefits that our constituents receive through the MA program. Given the impact that payment policies could have on our constituents, we ask that you prioritize beneficiaries’ experience and minimize disruption in maintaining payment levels for 2015.”

“Kay Hagan promised North Carolinians that ObamaCare wouldn’t harm seniors who rely on Medicare, but that wasn’t true,” said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen. “Kay Hagan has repeatedly deceived North Carolina voters. Now even though Kay Hagan admits that she slashed Medicare Advantage to pay for ObamaCare, she is trying to blame others for her broken promises. Hagan’s reckless cuts to Medicare mean fewer benefits and health care choices for seniors.  Deceiving seniors about Medicare isn’t the first lie Kay Hagan told about ObamaCare, but it serves as the latest reminder that North Carolinians can’t trust her to keep her word.”

If only there was something Kay and the other Senate Democrats could actually do. Some power delegated to them by the Constitution. But, then, perhaps they should have been concerned with what Obamacare would do before they stampeded straight to passing the Obamination of a bill.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Kay Hagan Is Bummed About Those Medicare Cuts She Voted For »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare | Comments Off on Kay Hagan Is Bummed About Those Medicare Cuts She Voted For | Trackback URL

“Climate Change” Might Mean More Turbulence In The Skies

By William Teach February 20, 2014 – 4:26 pm

After that airplane incident the other day which featured massive turbulence, including a baby being thrown several rows away, who bet on “Warmists will blame this on Hotcoldwetdry”?

Fasten Seat Belts: Climate Change Could Mean More Turbulence

“Could” is one of my favorite scientific words, because it could mean anything and has no measurable testing requirements.

Sudden turbulence injured crew and passengers on two flights an ocean apart this week, and the back-to-back bumpy rides are more than a coincidence — winter weather and changing climate patterns may have played a role. Technology to precisely anticipate the “clear air turbulence” likely to blame for both flights just doesn’t exist, experts say.

The first incident occurred on Monday, when United Airlines flight about to land at Billings, Montana, was rattled by sudden turbulence, which left two passengers and three flight attendants injured. The jolt also tossed a baby from its mother’s arms and into a nearby seat, where it landed unharmed. The second occurred aboard a Cathay Pacific flight out of San Francisco hit a patch of rough air above Japan, and a high-altitude “roller-coaster” ride left eight crew and passengers in hospital.

Oh, but if you thought it was the warmth created warmth from fossil fuels, alas, no

“Winter is when turbulence is the worst,” Williams said. “It’s when the jet stream is strongest … And that’s why we’re seeing the two encounters this week.”

So it is the warmth created cold from fossil fuels that could make turbulence worse.

Buckle Up, It’s Going to Be a Bumpy FutureThe bad news is that research suggests our travel is likely to get bumpier in the coming decades. Computer models have predicted that climate change and increased carbon dioxide levels will speed up the jet stream, leading to more serious episodes by 2050.

Once Warmists trot out “computer models”, especially when they “suggest”, game over. We’ve just gone into La La Land where science is conducted by unicorns who far out rainbows.

Read: “Climate Change” Might Mean More Turbulence In The Skies »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 20, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil carbon pollution infused can of beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on HHS wanting all your social media data.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Say, How’d That Official U.S. Winter Forecast Work Out?

By William Teach February 20, 2014 – 11:20 am

Not well

This is why Warmists only like to make predictions 50-100 years out

(Business Week) Surprised by how tough this winter has been? You’re in good company: Last fall the Climate Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that temperatures would be above normal from November through January across much of the Lower 48 states. This graphic shows just how wrong the official forecast of the U.S. government was.

The big red blotch in the top map represents parts of the country in which the Climate Prediction Center forecast above-average temperatures. The frigid-looking blue blotch in the bottom “verification” map shows areas where temperatures turned out to be below average.

I bet this will soon be blamed on “climate change”. Or Warmists will flip to “that’s not climate, that’s weather. And we know what will happen 100 years from now (insert Dean scream). The Lonely Conservative notes that Warmists want to blow up the economy when they can’t even get one season correct. Ace

I don’t really think it’s terrible that government meteorologists failed to predict how tough, cold, and snowy this Global Warmening winter would be. Predicting the future, like hitting a curveball, is hard.

But, of course: I’m a bit skeptical when they move straight from one near-term failed prediction to a long-term prediction, also failed, at least for the last 17 years, and tell me “Serious You Guys you have to trust on this, the Science is Settled.”

Warmists have removed skepticism from science. Now you must Believe, Have Faith, and Comply.

Read: Say, How’d That Official U.S. Winter Forecast Work Out? »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Hooray! Warmists Now Say “Climate Change” Will Cause More Crime

By William Teach February 20, 2014 – 8:42 am

The LA Times has been on a roll as of late with their “climate change” idiocy, here and here, blaming cold and snow and ice on “climate change”. Now we get

Climate change brings more crime

A new study broadens a notion held by the earliest criminologists: Periods of higher temperatures — on an hour-by-hour or week-to-week basis — are likely to produce more crime.

The study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a research and consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., suggests global warming will trigger more crimes including murders and rapes over the next century, with social costs estimated to run as high as $115 billion.

Between 2010 and 2099, climate change can be expected to cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft, the study published this week in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management says.

OK, there is some basis to this. Crime tends to occur more when it is warm than when cold. Yet, how does this play when there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperatures for 17 years? Does a 0.28F increase since 1990 really make a big difference? Would a miniscule increase of a few degrees magically increase crime?

But, does this prove anthropogenic causation? Because there have been multiple warm periods during the Holocene, at least two of them which were warmer than the current Modern Warm Period. Perhaps Warmists could tell us exactly what the perfect temperature would be? Marc Morano

“Instead of looking at temperature data or other climate metrics to prove or disprove man-made global warming claims, the global warming activists have now shifted the playing field so rape and murder statistics are now used as some sort of ‘proof’ of man-made global warming. Global warming science has truly morphed to modern witchcraft!’

Back to the LA Times

Therefore, it adds, “an immediate and permanent 4% increase in the size of the U.S. police force would be required to offset the aggregate climate-related increases in murder, manslaughter, robbery, burglary and vehicle theft likely to occur over the next century.”

And there we go: the Warmists want more police. More Big Government dominance. If they really cared about crime they might put more police in places like Detroit and other liberal cities. And change their own policies on law enforcement and the judicial system. Oh, and citizens carrying guns and standing their ground. Oh, and here’s something interesting pointed out in the comments at the LA Times article

According to the FBI’s own crime statistics, their “violent crime index” DROPPED steadily 1992 – 2011, from 757.7 to 386.3 (per 100,000 population). This is consistent with ALL the violent crime groups they list as well.  Virtually cut IN HALF!

Google this exactly including the quote marks and it comes up first:

“Crime in the United States is described by annual Uniform Crime Reports” fbi

Well, that’s strange, wouldn’t you say? Should crime have increased cause “climate change”? And crime was down in 2013, despite the (false) assertion that 2013 was one of the hottest years eveh!

Read: Hooray! Warmists Now Say “Climate Change” Will Cause More Crime »

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

Washington Post: Repeal All Stand Your Ground Laws

By William Teach February 20, 2014 – 8:17 am

This opinion piece comes to us by way of hyper-lefty E.J.Dionne, who’s writing exactly what Lefties thing and proposing what they want. Well, want for Everyone Else. The minute they themselves need Stand Your Ground, they’ll scream to the high heavens for protection

Repeal stand-your-ground laws

The law is supposed to solve problems, not create them. Laws should provide as much clarity as possible, not expand the realms of ambiguity and subjectivity. Laws ought to bring about the practical results their promoters claim they’ll achieve. And at its best, the law can help us to live together more harmoniously.

By all these measures, “stand your ground” laws are a failure. These statutes make the already difficult task of jurors even harder. They aggravate mistrust across racial lines. They appear to increase, rather than decrease, crime.

OK, so a few issues here and there mean the entire concept of the law has failed? Perhaps E.J. could provide a link to some study to back his assertion of mistrust across racial lines.

Dionne goes on to discuss the Dunn trial, and mentions George Zimmerman, in relation to SYG.

We shouldn’t fault the Dunn jury, which seemed to struggle to reach a just outcome. Unlike Zimmerman, the 47-year-old Dunn was not acquitted and could spend the rest of his life in prison. The jury clearly saw no justification for his firing at a fleeing car. But the stand-your-ground law undoubtedly sowed confusion on the murder count.

Actually, we should fault the jury, and prosecutor. The defense attempted to make a valid point in order to sow confusion in order to get his client off, despite it not being about SYG. And did to a degree, regarding the 1st degree murder charge, which I personally thought was a big stretch. In the Zimmerman case, the did not bring up SYG.

Florida’s statute allows someone to use force if he or she “reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.” The “reasonable belief” standard is not unique to stand-your-ground laws, but it opens a vast loophole for extreme subjectivity when it is applied in conjunction with them. This has created problems that even the law’s supporters should acknowledge.

Which is apparently Bad. Say, I wonder if Dionne has armed protection at the NY Times building? Yes, there are armed security guards. How about that? As far as “reasonable belief” goes, no, that is not perfect. Liberals would probably prefer that people who carry weapons, since they can’t get those dratted carry laws repealed, have a long list of conditions they must read through before defending themselves.

Stand-your-ground laws shift the balance of power on the streets to those who carry weapons. They thus provide an incentive for everyone to be armed, which is why the National Rifle Association has pressured legislatures in some two dozen states to enact them. We shouldn’t have to wait for another death and controversial trial to recognize that this is a poor reason for laws that cause such palpable harm. It’s time to repeal them.

Actually, they shift power into the hands of the law abiding citizens over the criminal elements. Like this mom, whose home had been broken into just a mere 2 weeks prior to the second criminal act

As three teenagers rushed into the house, Mom “didn’t have time to get scared,” she told WXYZ-TV in Detroit.

She warned the intruders she had a gun. Upon hearing their “no you don’t” reply, Mom figured they needed some convincing….and opened fire.

The teens’ entrance — and mighty swift exit — was all caught on the newly installed security cameras.

One of the teens picked his gun back up and attempted to go back inside. Another scary blast from mom’s shotgun sent him fleeing. This would be a case of SYG under Michigan law.

Will people misuse SYG? Sure. Welcome to life, where people are not perfect, and there are always jerks. And lest you think this is just cranky E.J. Dionne yapping, the Michael Dunn defense successfully bringing up SYG to avoid the 1st degree murder charge has sent the liberal nags wagging, such as at US News and World Report, CNN, and Al Jazeera. Liberals would prefer that no one is allowed to defend themselves, especially with scary guns, from the crime that liberal policies create in the first place.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: Repeal All Stand Your Ground Laws »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Joyetech 510-T E-cigarette

By William Teach February 19, 2014 – 7:07 pm

I mentioned back in December that I was making a concerted effort to use e-cigs more, and had been using Blue. The thing about Blue and all the similar ones is typically that you have to purchase replacement cartridges, which aren’t really that much cheaper than real cigarettes. Also, Blue batteries stink. Very short time between charges. And the cartridges do not last all that long before losing taste. Except the menthols, which have this horrendous taste when getting low.

So I’ve been using the Joyetech 510-T in automatic with XL size batteries since early January. They are a bit longer than an XL size cigarette. The great thing is they have this little tank to fill with liquid, so you can get all the great flavors.

I chose the 510-T auto because it is more like smoking a real cigarette. I never got that same feeling the the bigger types, especially in manual. With this I just inhale like with a cigarette.

The batteries easily last 12-16 hours, sometimes more, depending on the liquid. In the month and a half I’ve had it I’ve used about 2 1/2 bottles in the 10ml size. That’s about $16. I’ve used varying nicotine levels.

Now, it’s nit so good with darker liquids. I had a nice Reese’s flavored and caramel coffee flavored liquids, and they tend flood the atomizer, and muck up the tanks. Which clean easy. But it wastes liquid. The lighters do better. I love this strawberry chocolate mix. I also have an orange chocolate, but it’s so so. I also picked up a Cuban cigar, which has a nice cigar flavor, smell, and even a mouth and throat kick. Still trying to find a tobacco flavor I like.

Now, you don’t get the massive vapor or throat hit one would get with the bigger ecigs. However, I’m not baking, I’m smoking. It is much more portable. The tanks are not as big, but can be quickly refilled, and it came with 5.

And doing this has gotten me down to 5-8 real cigarettes a day. Heck, I used to have 5 before even getting to a morning shift. Now, 2.

Another benefit is if you just want a quick hit, you do not need to light a whole smoke. They do not stink up the car or house. My lungs feel better. And cool flavors.

U got mine from My Freedom Smokes.

Read: Joyetech 510-T E-cigarette »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Man Who Needs Back Surgery Learns About The Downfalls Of Obamacare

By William Teach February 19, 2014 – 4:05 pm

Another horror story regarding Obamacare

(CBS Sacramento) A Sonora mechanic is in so much pain that he can barely walk, but he can’t seem to find a doctor to fix his ailing back after he and his wife switched their insurance coverage through Covered California. (snip)

He’s still working, despite the pain. But finding a surgeon to fix his back has turned into a full-time job of its own.

“We get this coverage and go to the best doctor to fix Chris, and they tell us we’re out of network,” said his wife Tammy.

In January, they transitioned from an Anthem Blue Cross Plan over to Blue Cross Covered California. She says they had to switch to avoid the premium skyrocketing, but didn’t realize their provider network would be smaller.

Much of the skyrocketing cost was planned in order to get people to switch to Covered California.

Tammy says she finally found an in-network doctor, but the problems don’t end there. We looked him up using the couple’s plan info, and the Blue Cross website shows him as in-network.

But that same doctor’s officer told Tammy he won’t see patients with insurance from Covered California.

That’s actually a big problem not just for California, but for many states, which list doctors and medical facilities as part of the networks, and then the doctors and medical facilities say “no, we’re not.” In California, roughly 70% of doctors stated that they would not accept Covered California insurance, particularly since the reimbursement rate is so low that they could operating at a loss.

Don’t worry, though, I’m sure there are some pain pills available. Well, once the high deductible is met. Perhaps he should walk into a hospital and claim he’s an illegal alien, as one of the folks in the story comments points out.

And, yes, I do feel sorry for him and his wife. You can blame this solely on Obama and the Democrats. No Republican voted for this mess. And, unfortunately, this will only get worse with more and more stories coming out.

Read: Man Who Needs Back Surgery Learns About The Downfalls Of Obamacare »

Posted in Healthcare | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 19, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is warmth created snow, probably because someone used a hair dryer, you might just be a Warmist

Hump Day! The blog of the day is Right Wing News, with a post on the Girl Scouts threatening Life News.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Guardian: You Skeptics Need To Put Up Or Shut Up

By William Teach February 19, 2014 – 11:25 am

This is how science works in Warmist World: they don’t have to prove their insane ramblings

Climate change: time for the sceptics to put up or shut up

Say I were to ask you to prove that the dinosaurs were wiped out when an asteroid collided with the Earth 66m years ago, in what is now snappily called the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event.

If you were as weirdly obsessed by these catastrophes as I am, you would maybe start by citing the worldwide layer of sediment known as K-Pg boundary, which was first discovered near Gubbio, in Italy, and is thought to be the fallout from a massive explosion. You would mention the soot that is associated with this layer, the site of a huge impact in the Yucatán region of Mexico 66m years ago and, finally, you’d ask what else could have caused the dinosaurs to die out more or less overnight. A sceptic might respond that this is all supposition, evidence tenuously linked to fit a very recent theory: none of it constitutes proof and no one can ever know why the dinosaurs vanished to allow the rise of mammals and the eventual evolution of man.

So you would quote more evidence, such as the presence in the K-Pg layer of iridium, an element rare on Earth but not in asteroids, as well as the altered state of quartz, which can only be made under extremely high pressure, such as is caused by a huge impact of a 10km asteroid. You would mention the long darkness when only ferns grew and the fact that the seas were emptied of all but the most tenacious species.

Ah, but this is still all very hypothetical, the sceptic would say, at which point you might give up and tell him, yes, a spacecraft might have visited Earth and exterminated 75% of the world’s species, but you’re going with the best available evidence. The sceptic would walk away, satisfied that he had achieved a draw, not from the merit of his argument, but simply because he had not let you convince him.

How cute. Personally, I subscribe to the K-Pg theory (previously known as the K-T Boundary Event). You have the crater. You have the layer which has Iridium. And so much more. However, can you prove it 100%? Did I just hear you say “no”? The science is not, in fact, settled. Otherwise, why would scientists still be investigating it? In fact, there actually multiple theories as to what was the initial cause to the end of the dinosaur period. One theory is that volcanoes had already been wiping them out, and the asteroid was the cherry on top. Some think it was strictly earthly forces, and may claim that the asteroid had minimal to no impact. Maybe disease, stress, a supernova, and even caterpillars. How about 101 crazy theories? Some have even mention galactic bow shock. So, this isn’t quite “settled”, eh? (but most likely from an asteroid)

This is where we are with the climate change deniers. The absolute proof of manmade global warming is unlikely to arrive until it is too late and so the deniers are scrupulously indulged with equal time in the argument, where, taking the part of Little Britain’s wheelchair user Andy to our Lou, nothing is ever good enough for them.

Did Henry Porter just admit that they really do not have the proof? Are we supposed to spend trillions of dollars, institute Big Government control of people, private entities, and economies, and push our modern lifestyles back thousands of years without proof? According to Warmists, yes. Just not their own money, freedom, or lifestyles.

Anyhow, proof is rather necessary, and the actions and models from the Warmists show that they really do not have it. 95% of their models have failed post-1997. They are continuously making things up when out of the blue where their models fail. They yammer on about 50-100 years from now, while retroactively stating that every weather even is proof of “climate change”. They change the name of their cult, er, science. They change the data to fit their prognostications, which is the complete opposite of science. They Blame Mankind yet won’t change their own behaviors.

And they really do not like anyone to be allowed to speak against their pet cult. Rather fascistic.

They are always the sniping antagonists, rarely, if ever, standing up to say: we believe in the following facts and here is our research. It is a risk-free strategy – at least for the moment – that comes almost exclusively from the political right and is, as often as not, incentivised by simple capitalist gain. Hearing Lord Lawson argue with the impeccably reasonable climate scientist Sir Brian Hoskins on the BBC Today programme last week, I finally boiled over. It is surely now time for the deniers to make their case and hold an international conference, where they set out their scientific stall, which, while stating that the climate is fundamentally chaotic, provides positive, underlying evidence that man’s activity has had no impact on sea and atmosphere temperatures, diminishing icecaps and glaciers, rising sea levels and so on.

And there is the gist: Warmists do not have to prove anything. Those who do not subscribe to “climate change” must prove other causation. Well, we’ve done it time and time and time again (I could provide lots more links, those are just three I quickly grabbed). This is more of the “the science is settled, so just shut up” from these Warmists anti-science fascists. Whose own actions, data, and models prove their hypotheses are wrong.

To suspend hostilities for a moment, it seems to me that both sides should start by considering the undeniable waste of energy in British cities, where office lights shine through the night and supermarkets pump out hot air at open entrances and cold air in their freezer sections. Energy saving and a huge insulation programme might prevent the construction of more wasteful wind turbines, some of which, in the extreme weather of last week, burst into flames or had to be shut down.

Actually, not a bad idea.

We have to come to some agreement soon or the deniers won’t be the only dinosaurs.

Sigh. These people are unhinged.

Read: Guardian: You Skeptics Need To Put Up Or Shut Up »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 13 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove