…are evil plastic water bottles causing it to be hot and drop heavy snow, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Theo Spark (who I snagged the photo from), with a post on the new GOP flag.
Also, Proof Positive, who alerted me to the picture, with a post on Art Appreciation Day.
Read: If All You See… »
Zero tolerance follies
(Fox) The mother of a special needs middle school student in South Carolina said her son was suspended Monday after he brought in a drawing of a bomb to school, FoxCarolina.com reported.
Rhett Parham, the boy, is a fan of the video game “Bomber Man” and drew the cartoonish explosive, Amy Parham, his mother, said. Officials at the Hillcrest Middle School in Greenville told her that her son was suspended indefinitely after showing the drawing to older students who informed administrators, she told the station.
“They actually reiterated to me they knew he was non-violent,” said Parham. “They knew he was not actually having a bomb, creating or making a bomb. But that they could not go without making an example of him and take some type of action because they were worried about their perception. Perception is actually the word he used. Perception is reality, and parents might think you have a bomb or [might be] violent.”
Mom should have said he was a Muslim, then CAIR and the ACLU would have rushed in threatening law suits.
Read: Special Needs Student Suspended indefinitely Over Bomb Drawing »
When we’re talking about Obamacare, the “Affordable” Care Act, the massive failure of the websites are simply a result of how bad this law is. How unwieldy. And the perfect symbol of failure. Here’s the Chicago Times Editorial Board
(Chicago Tribune) If you’ve tried to sign up online for health coverage under the problem-plagued Obamacare exchange, our sympathies. Many people have tried to create accounts and shop for insurance under the new law. Few have succeeded. Those that have enrolled have found that the system is prone to mistakes. Some applications have been sent to the wrong insurance company.
Wait. It gets worse. Those who have managed to browse the marketplace have often been hit by sticker shock. Take Adam Weldzius, a nurse practitioner and single father from Carpentersville. He sought the same level of coverage on the exchange as he and his 7-year-old daughter have now, with the same insurer and the same network of doctors and hospitals. At best, Weldzius found, his monthly premium of $233 would more than double. If he chose a plan priced at the same level, the annual deductible would be $12,700, more than three times his current $3,500 deductible.
They go on to note the problems many more times, and point out that most Illinois plans are higher than previously, especially the deductibles. That Obama delayed most rules till after the 2012 election. That they’ve had over three years to get it right. That HHS missed deadline after deadline. And blows the “web traffic” talking points away
The Department of Health and Human Services under chief Obamacare cheerleader Kathleen Sebelius has had three years to develop this system. It has busted deadline after deadline, all the while promising that the system would be ready on Oct. 1. It has overpromised and underdelivered. The excuse? Demand was unexpectedly high, crashing servers. Unexpected? Americans have been bombarded with marketing campaigns and news stories and outreach efforts on behalf of Obamacare. And now Sebelius and Co. are shocked that people are logging in to … buy insurance? Come on, Ms. Sebelius.
True, who would have expected lots of web traffic? The Chicago Times recommends that, at a minimum, the individual mandate be suspended for a year, to give Los Federales time to get it right.
There are more problems. People who have individual insurance coverage are finding that Obama’s oft-repeated promise — “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan” — is just not true. They are being told by insurers that their existing plans expire on Dec. 31 and they must choose new coverage. They’re learning that insurers managed to offer lower-cost plans by narrowing the networks of hospitals and doctors that are available or by upping the out-of-pocket expenses. Unless people are careful in selecting coverage, they may be surprised to find they have to pay much more for out-of-network care to go to their doctors or get treated at the best hospitals. Federal officials argue that they’ll work out the kinks in the system in plenty of time for people to sign up by Dec. 15 for coverage that begins Jan. 1. Yes, the techies might be able to work out the computer network problems by then. But that’s not a given.
Fixing the computer network won’t fix the underlying problems with the law itself, nor that insurance seems to be unaffordable, at least if used. And restrictive. It’s almost like rationing. Even a Daily Kos diarist noticed how bad the law is in practice. And we’ve haven’t even gotten to the point where people might actually try and use the insurance.
And well he should have
(The Blaze) During a U.S. House hearing concerning the closure of national parks and monuments during the partial government shutdown, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) scolded the director of the National Park Service for treating “pot-smoking†demonstrators in the Occupy movement with more respect than the nation’s war veterans.
Gowdy relentlessly challenged National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis to cite the federal regulation that prompted his department to put up barricades to keep veterans out of war memorials on the first day of the shutdown. He also pointed out that the Park Service failed to issue a single citation when Occupiers camped out at D.C.’s McPherson Square for 100 days — 100 days in “non-compliance†with federal regulations.
“That was two years ago,†Jarvis explained.
“Well, I can cite you the regulation that you did not follow two years ago. Can you cite me the regulation that required you to erect barricades from accessing a monument that they built?†Gowdy pressed.
“On the very first day of the closure, I implemented a closure order for all 401 national parks in compliance with the Anti-Deficiency Act,†Jarvis replied. “And immediately, that day, also included, as a part of that order, that First Amendment activities would be permitted on the National Mall.â€
Unimpressed, Gowdy snapped back: “Do you consider it First Amendment activity to walk to a monument that you helped build, or is it only just smoking pot at McPherson Square?â€
Of course, Gowdy shouldn’t have just been blasting Director Jarvis: he should have been blasting (NMP) Obama, the person ultimately in charge, who could have stopped this. Republicans should have been blasting Obama left and right during the shutdown over this. Whenever they came on TV or radio they should have been using harsh language, the same type of harsh language Obama and the Democrats have used. They should have been making sure every Low Information Voter knew what was going on, and how despicable it was. Instead, they continued with their measures, reasonable talking points. Thomas Sowell calls them the “inarticulate Republicans“.
Republicans were never going to defund Obamacare. The Senate would never sign off. Nor would Obama. They might have gotten a one year waiver on the individual mandate. Probably not. But they could have emphasized all the temporary breaks and waivers Team Obama has given out like candy. They didn’t. Not in language that resonates. As Phineas tweeted
@WilliamTeach In all honesty,this was the right battle to fight,but at the wrong time & w/wrong strategy. But, it's done now @sistertoldjah
— Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) October 16, 2013
Republicans pretty much obtained zip. Not even the messaging battle.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: Trey Gowdy Blasts National Parks Director Over Barrycades »
I love this song. Always gives me goosebumps during the section where the countdown gets to 10 and under. Happened to be flipping through my MP3 player and it came up. Those 1980’s clothes, though. Sheesh.
And, you know what’s amazing? In 1981 we could launch a space shuttle. Now, Los Federales can’t even get a website to work. The cost of the entire space shuttle program was pegged at $209 billion (2010 dollars) through its entire run. Healthcare.gov cost $634 million (yeah, typo. Somehow the original with the typo posted instead of the update).
Think about it.
Read: Rush – Countdown »
Let’s start off by noting that this is required by law under the 1993 voter registration law, as all government agencies that provide public assistance must ask. Yet, is it really necessary to ask even before someone finds out how much they are going to be nailed for health insurance? Before they can even start their application?
(Fox News) The federal website that enrolls Americans in ObamaCare also asks applicants if they want to register to vote, raising questions about why the Obama administration would further complicate an already crash-prone website.
“The [website] launch has not gone well,†Nick Novak, a spokesman for the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy, which noticed the voter-registration question on the Wisconsin site, told FoxNews.com on Monday. “Why are they cluttering up the site?â€
Novak, who has unsuccessfully tried numerous times over the past week to click through the site, also argues officials should have at least posed the question after customers sign up for insurance.
Of course, they don’t want to wait till after one has registered and even submitted a successful application (which is rare) to ask. People would be so tired and upset after the whole experience they might not bother to register to vote. And
“The president should be careful what he wishes for,†he said. “While he counted on young people to win the presidency, many are now experiencing ObamaCare sticker shock.”
Na. Most are either staying on their parents plan or simply not bothering to register.
Read: Barely Functional Obamacare Websites Solicit Voter Registration »
…is a drought world that would be perfect for a wind farm, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Powerline, with a post on GOP immigration push.
Read: If All You See… »
This article is noted more for blowing up the Warmist notion that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for every weather event and change in temperature
(New Scentist) Is the earthworm turning into a global warming saviour? Earlier this year, the animals were cast as key contributors to climate change, but they may have been falsely accused.
A fifth of carbon dioxide emissions come from soils, and earthworms play a central role. They churn up soil, encouraging breakdown of organic matter to produce CO2. They also drive subterranean processes that both lock up and release carbon.
New Scientist isn’t exactly a “skeptic” site. In fact, they are “climate change” cheerleaders. Two points: first, if the science on earthworms can change, why not the notions on anthropogenic “climate change”?
Second, they just said 1/5th of CO2 output comes from the soil. Most of that will be natural. That means that mankind can’t be mostly/solely responsible right off the bat, as Warmists proposition. Heck, the oceans themselves release 16x more CO2 than mankind.
And Warmists still won’t practice what they preach.
Wait, wait, we aren’t supposed to call it amnesty, because allowing illegals to live here illegally is “de facto amnesty“, according to Marco “John McCain Lite” Rubio. The thing is, as soon as this budget fight concludes, Democrats, and some Republicans, are most likely going to turn back to “comprehensive immigration reform”
(Daily Caller) Only one out of every eight swing-voters strongly back an amnesty for illegals immigrants, according to a new poll by President Barack Obama’s 2012 polling firm.
The poll, which was funded by NBC and Esquire magazine, was intended to highlight the political views of non-partisan American voters.
This middle non-partisan bloc comprises 51 percent of all voters, according to two polling firms who conducted the survey, released Oct. 15. The firms were Obama’s Benenson Strategy Group, and Public Opinion Strategies, which was the primary polling firm for GOP candidate Gov. Mitt Romney.
Just 12 percent of these middle-bloc respondents strongly support “providing illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship even though they have broken the rules,†according to a summary printed by Esquire.
Thirty-eight percent of the middle-bloc strongly oppose the amnesty, creating a political minefield for the politicians who need to woo swing-voters.
Well, that’s a kick in the pants for the “pathway to citizenship for people who are here illegally” crowd, wouldn’t you say? 20% more “somewhat support” said pathway, while 16% say they “somewhat oppose”. How about we just kick out the majority of these folks who blow off our laws and sovereignty, especially since so many don’t even bother to learn English and integrate? And do this
Getting the Mexican flag ready to rally for American citizenship #immigration #noamnesty pic.twitter.com/XJDOmoi9uv
— FAIR (@FAIRImmigration) October 8, 2013
More: if anyone thinks I might be overdoing it in regards to an immediate push for amnesty, Obama has vowed to push the day after the shutdown deal is reached.
Read: Bummer: Only One In Eight Swing State Voters Back Amnesty »
Facts are apparently false. Here’s the Washington Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler, giving it the old college try to protect the “Affordable” Care Act, something many, many liberals, and ultra squishy “Republicans” who spend more time bashing Republicans than Democrats, have tried before
“The president has exempted over 1,200 groups, including members of Congress, from the health care law.†– Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), in an interview on CNN, Oct. 15, 2013
That’s the fact checked statement, and here’s what Kessler writes
The first part of Scalise’s statement refers to one-year waivers that the Department of Health and Human Services granted to 1,231 companies regarding the law’s restrictions of annual benefit caps.
Yep, you read that correctly. He is referring to a one-year waiver regarding one, relatively small aspect of the law.
Apparently, that’s supposed to be incorrect, despite “over 1,200” companies being given waivers. For the companies, that’s a short term proposition, but, they were, in fact, given an waiver. A bit of a stretch in the language, welcome to Politics 101.
Now we get to the typical spin
As for Congress being exempted, this is also incorrect.
As a result of an amendment offered by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the Affordable Care Act includes a provision that would require members of Congress (and their personal staffs) to get their insurance on the Obamacare exchanges.
OK, so, The Law, or, as Liberals and squishy Republicans put it “It’s The Law”, requires that Congress and their personal staffs go through the Exchanges. Is that so hard to understand? Apparently so
But there was an unexpected wrinkle: the exchanges are intended for people who currently do not get employer-provided insurance, whereas lawmakers and their staffs previously had about 70 percent of their insurance premiums underwritten by the federal government through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
For lawmakers and their staffs, the loss of employer contributions would have amounted to an unintended pay cut of between $5,000 to $10,000. Under pressure from Congress, the Office of Personnel Management proposed a rule in August, which was finalized in September, saying the federal government could still contribute to health-care premiums.
The final rule would keep the subsidy in place only for members of Congress and affected staff who enroll in a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) plan available in the District of Columbia. Such plans most commonly will be aimed at employees of businesses with fewer than 50 workers, but perhaps the theory is that each lawmaker and his or her staff constitute a small business. In any case, lawmakers and their staffs are not eligible for the tax credits that other Americans using the exchanges might qualify for.
They also tend to make quite a bit more than the Average American, so wouldn’t be eligible in most cases.
Bell argued that “under the OPM rule, approximately 16,000 congressional employees will obtain their health insurance through the SHOP exchanges, 320 times more than the amount supposedly allowed under the law.†He said this “is clearly an exemption from the ACA for Congress by the Obama Administration.†He cited a dictionary definition of exemption: “freedom from being required to do something that others are required to do.â€
But as we noted, the exchanges were not intended for people already with employer-provided insurance. So it’s already a rather unusual situation. Costs have been imposed on lawmakers and their staffs that did not previously exist, and OPM’s rule appears intended to solve that problem — instead of “exempting†them from the health care law.
Regardless, It’s The Law mandated they purchase through the Exchanges, just like so many millions of Americans must do. Especially those who are losing their health insurance plans because of Obamacare. Lawmakers are supposed to feel the pain. The OPM rule makes sure they don’t. They’re exempted from the pain. It matters zero that they already have “employer provided insurance”. The law says “hit the exchanges”. Period
Furthermore, the law itself included a waiver from the law for leadership staffs, which include some of the same people who wrote this mule fritters bill. This payment is also illegal. OPM has zero authority to provide payment.
Break it down: Are Congress members and their staffs getting insurance on the individual exchange, and are they having to pay for it themselves just as the law intended? No. Kessler gives Scalise 3 Pinocchio’s out of 4, for what is technically correct. I’ll give his spin 3 Donkeys
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: Fact Checker: Three Pinocchio’s For Factually True Statements On Obamacare »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
