In Debunking Myths About Obamacare, Washington Post Forgets To Debunk Them

They’re just “challenging everything you know”, and essentially proving you, meaning those who understand Obamacare, rather than simply being cheerleaders for a bill you didn’t read, 100% correct

(WP) 1. The “individual mandate” forces everyone to buy health insurance.

The law states that, beginning in 2014, individuals must ensure that they and their dependents are covered by health insurance. Taxpayers who do not meet this requirement will have to pay a penalty that the law calls a “shared responsibility payment.” It begins at $95 for the first year and never exceeds 21 / 2 percent of anyone’s annual taxable income.

A large majority of Americans, of course, have health insurance through their employers, Medicare or Medicaid and are already in compliance with this requirement. Given the relatively modest payment required of those who choose not to maintain insurance, no one is being forced to buy a product they don’t want.

The challengers argue that the mandate is a binding requirement that makes anyone who goes without insurance a lawbreaker. The government has determined, however, that those who pay the penalty, like those who are exempt from the penalty, are not lawbreakers. As a practical matter, the so-called mandate is just a relatively modest financial incentive to have health insurance.

So, essentially, you either must purchase health insurance or face a fine/tax. Just like we have argued. The “myth” is positioned as “you must purchase it.” Period. Alas, that was never the argument, so, myth #1 shot down.

2. Only the individual mandate is at stake in the Supreme Court case.

The mandate is not a stand-alone provision that can be invalidated without affecting the rest of the law. In fact, it is merely an ancillary measure that makes two more-fundamental provisions of the law workable: “guaranteed issue” and “community rating.”

Not sure how that is a myth. Conservatives want the entire thing shot down.

3. If the court upholds the health-care law, it means Congress has the power to require Americans to purchase any product.

The mandate does not force people into commerce who would otherwise remain outside it. Instead, it regulates the consumption of health care, an activity in which virtually everyone will engage. Right now, people who go without insurance often shift the costs of their health care to other patients and taxpayers. That situation is different from what happens with any other type of purchase.

The WP says that government cannot force you to “buy broccoli”, but doesn’t understand a few points. First, broccoli is simply an allegory for the unfettered power of the central government, of which we already see too much. Second, the Commerce Clause doesn’t give the central government the power to dictate the purchase of a product to occur because commerce may occur, especially not when the commerce is not outside of the individual states.

4. The law is socialist.

Actually, the opposite is true. The principal reason the Affordable Care Act has been called unprecedented is that it declines to follow the New Deal approach of having a monolithic government agency be the single provider of a good or service. Instead, the law adopts a new approach, one conservatives have long supported, of using providers in the private market to deal with social and economic problems.

On this one, sort of. It is more fascistic than socialist. However, it does involve the government at all levels in health decisions, and the Exchanges are, for all purposes, run by government, which is a primary position of the Democratic Socialist political theory under the Economic Core. Much more could be said about this model among the three Democracy models (Socialist, Conservative, and Liberal), but, I won’t bore you with Political Theory.

5. The law is an extraordinary intrusion into liberty.

Nothing in the health-care law tells doctors what they must say to patients or how those patients are to be treated. It only requires people to either have insurance coverage or pay a modest tax penalty.

Actually, it does, and those of us who’ve read the bill know that bill dictates costs and treatments, and created that ‘Death Panel,” otherwise known as “The Independent Payment Advisory Board”.

Anyone else get the feeling that Obamacare supporters are getting really nervous about the Supreme Court hearing which starts Monday?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: In Debunking Myths About Obamacare, Washington Post Forgets To Debunk Them »

ABC News Shocked At The Emotional Outpouring For Pope Visit

No, really, it’s like the can’t imagine the love Catholics have for the Pope

Pope’s Arrival in Mexico Sparks Surprising Emotion

It’d be surprising if they were mad, upset, angry, and so forth, but

So well before dawn Saturday, two dozen youths from a Guadalajara church group gathered near the school where the Pope Benedict XVI was staying.

“We sang with all our heart and all our force,” said Maria Fernanda de Luna, a member of the group. “It gave us goosebumps to sing ‘Las Mananitas’ for him.”

Songs, joyful throngs, church bells and confetti welcomed Benedict as he began his first trip to Mexico, a celebration that seemed to erupt spontaneously out of what had been a thin, sun-dazed crowd.

As Pope Benedict XVI’s plane appeared in the shimmering heat of Friday afternoon, people poured from their homes. They packed sidewalks five and six deep, screaming ecstatically as the pope passed, waving slowly. Some burst into tears.

And ABC News is somehow surprised. Typical lefties don’t understand religion.

Sunday update: as GT points out in the comments, the story has disappeared from ABC News. While the link goes to a much shortened Mobile version (I did the post on my ‘Droid), if you search Google for the headline, the link goes to a different story about the Pope at ABC News. But that same headline provides for many, many other stories. It looks like it was originally an AP story. Can see it at Yahoo News, among others.

Read: ABC News Shocked At The Emotional Outpouring For Pope Visit »

Do You Believe In Climate Change?

That’s what Warmist Vicky Pope, who is a senior scientist at the (discredited) Met Office Hadley Centre at the UK Guardian wants to know

Do you believe in climate change?

That’s not a question you should be asking – it’s a matter of empirical evidence, not belief

So you climate realists just need to STFU and GTFO. Even though “climate change” is an absurd and unscientific phrase used to blame everything that happens on mankinds release of greenhouse gases, such as from the energy used to publish the Guardian on the Internet.

This may seem like an odd question for a climate scientist to ask, but it is one I am constantly asked now. The typical discussion starts: “I know that the climate is changing, but hasn’t it always changed through natural cycles?” Then they will often give an example, such as the medieval warm period to prove their point.

And then Vicky forgets to actually address the climate changes, such as the MWP, Little Ice Age, Roman Warm Period, etc. That would be an inconvenient truth.

Which brings me on to the question, should you believe in climate change? The first point to make is that it’s not something you should believe or not believe in – this is a matter of science and therefore of evidence – and there’s lots of it out there. On an issue this important, I think people should look at that evidence and make their own mind up. We are often very influenced by our own personal experience. After a couple of cold winters in the UK, the common question was “has climate change stopped?” despite that fact that many other regions of the world were experiencing record warm temperatures. And 2010 was one of the warmest years on record. For real evidence of climate change, we have to look at the bigger picture.

Yeah, there is lots of evidence that the climate changes. Most of it points towards natural variation. Why did we get a cooling trend from the 1940’s through 1970’s, despite CO2 rising? Why has the climate, from a temperature standpoint, been stagnant for the last 15 years, despite rising CO2 levels? Why do the Warmists models fail so spectacularly?

You can see research by the Met Office that shows the evidence of man-made warming is even stronger than it was when the last IPCC report was published. A whole range of different datasets and independent analyses show the world is warming. There is a broad consensus that over the last half century warming has been rapid, and man-made greenhouse gas emissions are very likely to be the cause.

Check that Met Office link: nothing within shows anthropogenic causation, simply that the world has warmed. Yes, the world has warmed. That happens. And, do we even need to discuss that consensus is not science? And, if you are saying anthropogenic causes is the cause as “very likely”, that’s not science. Put a percentage to that. Is it or is it not? That’s science. BTW, that link for “fail so spectacularly” is about Vicky’s Met Office retroactively altering historical data to match their beliefs. Is that “sceince,” Vicky? Or advocacy?

Read: Do You Believe In Climate Change? »

If All You See…

…are evil cows killing Gaia, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Power.

Read: If All You See… »

Newt Calls Obama’s Trayvon Martin Comments “Disgraceful” And “Appalling”

When asked, Obama had this to say about Trayvon Martin

Well, I’m the head of the executive branch, and the Attorney General reports to me so I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we’re not impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now.

But obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.

So I’m glad that not only is the Justice Department looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what’s taking place. I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.

But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.

Newt was not particularly happy with this response

President Obama’s remarks today about the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin drew scowls from GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich, who called them “disgraceful” and divisive.

“What the president said in a sense is disgraceful. It’s not a question of who that young man looked like,” Gingrich said on Sean Hannity’s radio show.

Gingrich said on the radio show: ”Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background. Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn’t look like him?”

He went added that it’s “just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot. It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American. It is sad for all Americans.”

Gingrich, a former speaker of the House of Representatives, said: “Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.”

In this case, I find that I have to offer a defense of Obama, no matter how much it pains me. While I’m sure that even the Obama White House isn’t so incompetent as to offer a brief to Barack in case he was asked this question, he was answering off the cuff, and, let’s face it, Obama tends to personalize everything. Personally, I did not see him making it a racial issue; instead, he seemed to be calling for calm and to let the process work itself out. Furthermore, he wisely took no position, as that would make it impossible for Zimmerman to get a fair and impartial trial involving a fair and impartial jury. As it is, all the demonstrations, outcry, and rhetoric surrounding the case may make it impossible to get a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

And, it is a tragedy. What we need are the facts, not the feelings. We need to know what actually happened. Why it happened. Not speculation, but cold, hard facts. Even if the supposition points to massive wrong-doing by Zimmerman, we cannot arbitrarily throw Zimmerman into jail, as Congressman Alan West supports, without the facts. We then become a frontier justice society, one where justice is based on feelings, not the rule of law. Time will provide the answer.

Read: Newt Calls Obama’s Trayvon Martin Comments “Disgraceful” And “Appalling” »

Obama’s Chevy Go Cart Shockingly Needs New Charging Cord

Happy Saturday! It’s a beautiful day in America, and yet another Saturday where (NMP) is whining pushing for more stimulus style money for transportation in his weekly address. Not sure why, since it is starting to get a little too expensive for Americans to drive on America’s “crumbling roads and bridges“. And “we’ve got thousands of unemployed construction workers who’ve been looking for a job ever since the housing market collapsed. But once again, we’re waiting on Congress.” If memory serves, Obama and the Democrat Congress passed a $787 billion dollar stimulus which was supposed to take care of these shovel ready projects.

Fortunately, Obama pushed for a vehicle that has a tough time staying on the road, which makes it easier to fill the potholes that could possibly make the batteries think an accident has occurred and cause them to catch on fire. And that isn’t the only problem

(USA Today) General Motors has announced it is replacing the cord and charging device that lets owners charge the car from a 120-volt household outlet, according to a report by Reuters.

GM spokesman Randal Fox told Reuters that the replacement for the charger that comes with the $40,000 car has a beefier cable and will “offer a more consistent charging experience,” though it won’t make it charge faster. The program covers all 2011 Volts and some 2012s — the 120-volt cords, 240-volt cords are not affected.

OK, let’s be fair, all cars have some sort of problem. One would think that a fundemental part of the vehicle charging would be tested first

According to Consumer Reports, some Volt owners have complained that their 120-volt charger “overheats during use and have even documented online videos of melted 120-volt chargers.” CR said it has not had the problem in its testing of the car, which is on its “recommended” list.

Oh, good. Fortunately,

“It’s not a safety recall,” Fox said. “It’s more of a customer-satisfaction program.”

Well, yeah, I suppose having a charging cord that doesn’t melt and potentially burn one’s house down would create some customer satisfaction and “offer a more consistent charging experience.” It’s no wonder Obama wants to wait for 5 years to buy: he wants to make sure all the massive kinks are out of them.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama’s Chevy Go Cart Shockingly Needs New Charging Cord »

NY Times Attempts To Become More Irrelevant

Question: how often do you see NY Times articles featured at Memeorandum or the blogs you read? Not that often anymore. When the Times tried their “Times Select” program, pay-walling certain content, the opinion articles were barely ever featured. They removed the wall, and suddenly Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, and the others were showing up. Then the Times moved to their “20 free articles per month” method, and linking went down. And now they want to further show their irrelevance by changing the program up

Beginning in April, visitors to NYTimes.com can access 10 free articles each month, rather than 20.

This change will strengthen our ability to continue providing the world’s most insightful journalism today. It will also support the ongoing development of digital innovations and apps that make The Times an experience you won’t find anywhere else.

Most will opt for “well, other outlets are carrying the same news. I’ll read and link them.”

Read: NY Times Attempts To Become More Irrelevant »

Even Democrats And Independents Not Buying The Globull Warming Narrative On Warmer Winter

Perhaps I should add another category “Dying Science Cult”. First, Gallup people were asked if the winter was warmer than usual. I’d say “yes.” Then the followup, which was “If warmer, do you think the temperatures are mainly due to global warming (or to) normal year to year variation in temperature?”

So, only 28% of Independents believe, and, 43% of Democrats. Of course, to be honest, just 51% of both Republicans and Independents think it is natural variation. So, somewhere in between is what we find. Mostly natural, but, some man caused.

Also, I really wish polling organizations would specify whether the belief on global warming is man-induced specifically, rather than just “global warming”. Add a third column, natural global warming.

Read: Even Democrats And Independents Not Buying The Globull Warming Narrative On Warmer Winter »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled car which Other People should not drive, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Air Vent.

Read: If All You See… »

Having Solved All Of America’s Problems, Dem Senate To Hold Hearing On NFL Bounties

Priorities

(Politico) A Senate Judiciary subcommittee will hold a hearing on the bounty system allegedly used by several National Football League teams – one day after top coaches from the New Orleans Saints were suspended as punishment for a program that awarded players with cash if they injured their opponents.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who will chair the hearing, said Thursday the committee will also investigate whether federal sports bribery laws need to be changed to include sports bounty programs. The date for the hearing has yet to be announced, but Durbin said it will occur after the Easter recess.

“We will have a hearing and put on the record what sports leagues and teams at the professional and collegiate levels are doing to make sure that there’s no place in athletics for these pay-to-main bounties,” Durbin said on the Senate floor Thursday. “I want to hear the policies and practices in each of the major sports and collegiate sports that are being put in place.”

Let’s be honest, Durbin does have a point: this has no place in the game. It is a game. This isn’t like placing bounties on the heads of Al Qaeda leaders. It’s a game. And a business. And a livelihood. I 100% agree with the year long suspension of New Orleans Saints Sean Peyton. And the possible lifetime ban of Greg Williams. Unfortunately, the St. Louis Rams had to pay the price, as Williams was hired as their defensive coordinator, but, at least they have time to change. One question remains: what about the players involved? Some have moved on to other teams. Do you suspend them, and hose those teams? Do you just suspend Saints players and fine those on other teams?

And, from the Washington Post

But “It goes way beyond the rules of any sporting contest, at least team contest, to intentionally inflict harm on another person for a financial reward,” the senator told ESPN.

Pete Rose was banned for life for gambling, and still maintains he didn’t bet on the Reds to lose. Marge Schott was banned for life for racist remarks. Steve Howe was banned for drug use while playing. There have been plenty of players who were banned for life in all different sports, both while as a player and after. Same with owners and coaches. Look at the penalties on colleges. They can lose scholarships, forfeit bowl game eligibility, and forfeit previous wins in previous seasons (that one’s pretty dumb, IMO. They already won them). Players can be suspended and lose college eligibility, and most of the time it revolves around taking money. Not programs designed to injure other players for pay. Those injuries can have severe consequences for the finances and health of players.

But, as Marco Rubio points out

“#senate hasn’t passed a #budget in almost 3 yrs but is going to have hearings on #bounties in #nfl?” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Twitter. “#comeonman.”

Priorities.

Ed Morrissey has more.

Read: Having Solved All Of America’s Problems, Dem Senate To Hold Hearing On NFL Bounties »

Pirate's Cove