November 1-3, 2013
Nov 01 01:52 Beware of politicians promising free lunches Nov 02 00:52 Liberal foolishness Nov 02 01:54 Brewer, D-Will stop Durant; T'Wolves trounce Thunder Nov 02 13:44 The most transparently dishonest administration Nov 02 18:41 The AP's odd reporting Nov 02 19:34 Agreeing -- and disagreeing -- with Sen. Durbin Nov 03 12:37 Liberal foolishness, Part II Nov 03 20:18 Bakk's biggest blunder?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Beware of politicians promising free lunches
Charles Krauthammer's latest column offers this advice:
It's Halloween. There is a knock at your door. You hear: 'We're the government and we're here to help.'
You hide.
With the Affordable Care Act failing beyond even the most pessimistic Republican's worst nightmare, that's sage advice. This, though, is the most disturbing information in Dr. Krauthammer's column:
So that your president can promise to cover 30 million uninsured without costing the government a dime. Which from the beginning was the biggest falsehood of them all. And yet the free lunch is the essence of modern liberalism. Free mammograms, free preventative care, free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke. Come and get it.
And then when you find your policy canceled, your premium raised and your deductible outrageously increased, you've learned the real meaning of 'free' in the liberal lexicon: something paid for by your neighbor best, by subterfuge.
That last clause in the last sentence reminded me of this famous quote :
As soon as A observes something which seems to him wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X, or, in better case, what A, B, and C shall do for X... What I want to do is to look up C. I want to show you what manner of man he is. I call him the Forgotten Man. perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. he is the man who never is thought of.... I call him the forgotten man.
There's a poem that goes with that famous quote. It says "If you promise to not tax me, I promise not to tax thee. Instead, let's tax that fellow behind the tree." That's the essence of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, it can't survive without the "forgotten man" subsidizing someone else's health insurance.
In this instance, the forgotten man are really forgotten people. Specifically, they're called "young healthies" by the pundits. They're being counted on to buy health insurance they don't need. If they don't buy insurance in significant numbers, there isn't a way for the government or the insurance companies to pay for health care of older people and/or people with pre-existing conditions.
Another forgotten man in this are middle class families who make too much to qualify for premium support but who've been getting squeezed with higher taxes and higher costs of goods. They're getting hit with higher premiums, thanks to A and B conspiring to force the forgotten man, aka middle class families, into buying health care coverages they don't want or might never need.
That's why it's wise to be suspicious of politicians promising free lunches.
Posted Friday, November 1, 2013 1:52 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 01-Nov-13 03:58 PM
Gary:
One big point Charles is skipping over and it shouldn't be skipped over is that we had to do this because there is something like 30 million uninsured Americans (the number was 50 maybe), but CBO predicts by 2020 when this law is fully implemented we will have something like 20-30 million uninsured.
What good is this policy if it can't achieve that key goal?
Why tear apart the whole health care system for nothing?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Liberal foolishness
The latest Democratic chanting point on the Affordable Care Act has been that President Obama didn't really break his promise that you could keep your health insurance plan if you liked it. The chanting point has become that the policies getting canceled were substandard policies that insurance companies foisted on unsuspecting dupes (you). That's certainly the message Henry Aaron is peddling in this article :
Of late, numerous reports have told of people surprised by letters telling them that insurance plans they now have will not be renewed. Many are puzzled. Weren't they told that if they like their insurance they could keep it? Opponents of health reform in general are seizing on the fact and asking in an accusatorial manner: 'Isn't this a betrayal of trust?'
No. To see why, imagine a new law enacted to promote food purity. As it is being debated, you are told: 'If you like what you eat, you can keep on eating it.' The new law takes effect, and one day, you find that the market no longer carries certain foods you have been buying. As it happens, those products included elements found to be bad for your health. The pure food act barred their use.
There's a huge flaw with this logic. They're called Cadillac health insurance policies. Last night on Megyn Kelly's show, a woman talked about how she had such a plan. When her husband got cancer that eventually killed him, the policy saved her family from huge expenses. The treatments cost over $300,000. Thanks to their health insurance policy, their out-of-pocket expenses came to $1,500. That's in addition to the premiums they paid.
When the policy wasn't offered anymore, this woman chose to continue this coverage, paying the premiums out of her own pocket. She did the right thing. She wasn't putting a burden on society. She didn't complain about not getting her policy subsidized. She just paid the premiums.
This fall, she got a notice that her policy was canceled thanks to the Affordable Care Act's penalty on Cadillac plans. That's right. The Affordable Care Act is making Cadillac plans obsolete. That's why the unions are upset. All these years, they've settled for smaller wage increases, which are taxed, in exchange for premium quality health insurance policies, which aren't taxed.
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, these union workers won't have the option of a Cadillac plan plus they're stuck with the lower pay increases that they negotiated.
It's difficult to see how Cadillac plans are the equivalent of "products [that] included elements found to be bad for your health." The full name of the Affordable Care Act is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One of the Democrats' first chanting points was the PPACA would protect families from medical bankruptcies. This lady's Cadillac health insurance policy did that and then some.
It's insulting that Mr. Aaron insists that the canceled policies are sub-standard policies. It's insulting on multiple levels, starting with the fact that those policies can't be sold if they aren't first approved by that state's insurance commissioner.
Early in her political career, Ms. Sebelius was Kansas' insurance commissioner. Is she now admitting that the policies she approved were sub-standard? When President Obama called these insurance plans sub-standard, he essentially accused the 50 state insurance commissioners incompetent.
Second, in many places, competition among insurers will lower premiums. Bloomberg Government has reported that the more plans offered in an exchange, the lower the premiums.
In Minnesota, a state recognized as a leader in health insurance innovation and access, most rural cities have few options. In fact, many of these places have a single option in terms of insurance providers competing.
Third, people can hold down premiums by selecting plans with comparatively high deductibles.
That option isn't brought to us by the Affordable Care Act. That was available to clients who had health savings accounts and a catastrophic policy, both of which are illegal under the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
The problem was a misdiagnosis of the situation in 2009. The US health care system needed extensive work. It didn't need to put an incompetent administration in charge of a complex industry. Democrats didn't need to give bureaucrats the authority of who could keep the health insurance plans they liked. Democrats didn't need to tell people what insurance policies were "sub-standard" and which ones were government-approved.
What Democrats should've done is get out of the way so innovators couls've put together a package of real reforms.
Posted Saturday, November 2, 2013 12:52 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-Nov-13 12:13 PM
Gary:
Lets remember why the plans are substandard. There were people who didn't ask for maternity care coverage, drug abuse coverage, mental counciling, or plans that in case of a bad illeness my horrible medical costs will be covered then and I will cover routine trips to the hospital.
The reason why they are substand in order to cover things that they wanted cover (see items I just mentioned) everyone has to pay extra on their preiums for that coverage.
Why is my plan substandard if I'm a man who isn't dating let alone having sex with a woman if I don't want a maternity care option on my insurance?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Shoebox at 02-Nov-13 04:41 PM
The plans weren't "substandard" in a generally competitive market place but were deemed "substandard" in a government controlled market place....the problem is obvious. There is not a market place anywhere where the government is involved, there are more choices. Government always limits choices via their requirements or mandates.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 02-Nov-13 06:48 PM
Shoe, Did you mean to say that where gov't is involved, people have fewer choices?
Comment 4 by shoebox at 03-Nov-13 06:38 PM
Yup. Insert a "that" after the last comma.
Brewer, D-Will stop Durant; T'Wolves trounce Thunder
Last night, Corey Brewer and Derrick Williams put on a defensive clinic, stopping Thunder superstar Kevin Durant at times, frustrating him at other times and making him work hard all night. They were the key to the T'Wolves' 100-81 victory over the Oklahoma City Thunder at Target Center. Kevin Love led all scorers with 24 points. Nikola Pekovic added 15 points and 10 rebounds while Ricky Rubio scored 14 points to go with his 10 assists and 5 steals.
The night belonged to Corey Brewer and Derrick Williams, though, with Brewer frustrating Durant into a sub-par 13 point performance. Brewer chased Durant through screen after screen, refusing to let Durant get clean looks at the hoop. The key to the matchup was Brewer's height, athleticism and tenacity.
When Brewer wasn't chasing Durant around, Derrick Williams played the role of Durant's shadow. Williams isn't as talented or tenacious defensively as Brewer but he's as athletic as his teammate.
Telling, too, was the fact that the T'Wolves turned 21 Thunder turnovers into 25 points. Finally, the T'Wolves outscored the Thunder 19-2 on fast breaks.
The game wasn't as close as the final score showed, which should frighten Scottie Brooks, the Thunder's coach. The T'Wolves' largest lead was 100-69. That meant Oak City scored the last 12 points to pull within 20 of the T'Wolves.
It's much too soon to make predictions on where the T'Wolves will finish but it isn't too early to say that this is the most talented team in franchise history other than the team that went to the Western Conference Finals. Love is healthy again. Nikola Pekovic just signed a new contract so he'll be around for a few years. Ricky Rubio has played like an All-Star thus far, playing sterling defense while dazzling fans with his great passing skills. Corey Brewer and Kevin Martin round out the starting five, followed by subs J.J. Barea, Alexey Schved, Derrick Williams and Rony Turiaf.
Kevin Martin is a talented wingman offensively while Brewer is the defensive stopper and energy guy. They're significant upgrades over last year's players, partially because of their professionalism, partially because of their skill sets. They're great additions to the T'Wolves' big three of Kevin Love, Nikola Pekovic and Ricky Rubio.
How far they'll go is still a mystery at this point in the season. What's plenty knowable, though, is that this team is talented, talented enough to make the playoffs.
Posted Saturday, November 2, 2013 1:54 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-Nov-13 12:07 PM
Gary:
The key thing is will Love and Rubio remain healthy. they have a great coach that can get this team to play up to it's potential. They can make the playoffs where hopefully magic will take place.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The most transparently dishonest administration
George Will nails the Obama administration with this devastating broadside:
Here's what Will said:
GEORGE WILL: Subtract six from seven million. That's number they expect to have or need to have signed up by March and it will only decline. There's an old axiom in Washington, if you don't like news, make some of you own. So, the president went to Boston, and with utter predictability, turned this into an attack on insurance companies, bad apple insurers whose sins was selling customers policies the customers wanted but that the administration thinks they shouldn't want.
Now, this is the most transparent administration in history, by its own description, is complaining today about leaks from itself from documents that leaked numbers it claims it doesn't have. It's not a pretty picture.
The administration is stumbling all over itself. Kathleen Sebelius testified this week that the administration wouldn't release the numbers of people who've enrolled for insurance through the Affordable Care Act's health insurance exchanges because the numbers are unreliable.
Hours later, the document Mr. Will referenced found its way into the right hands. What it shows is that a) HealthCare.gov isn't consistently functional and b) when HealthCare.gov is working, people are saying no in historic numbers. The administration is acting predictably. It's embarassed by the enrollment figures. That's why Jay Carney lashed out at FNC's Ed Henry for pressing him on the enrollment numbers.
The administration knows that its credibility is shrinking significantly. Further, they know that further erosion of its credibility will cripple the President's ability to push his agenda on Capitol Hill. The theory there is that a president can't push people around if he isn't popular and his credibility is diminished.
Mostly, though, the American people, at least the ones paying attention, are figuring it out that President Obama isn't trustworthy. They're starting to question whether his policy perscriptions are right for America, too.
This week's biggest loser is President Obama. he got pounded for knowingly lying about "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan." He knew in July, 2010 that people's grandfathered in plans soon wouldn't have grandfathered protection. He knew it because of the regulation that was implemented. It predicted that tens of millions of people would be forced on to the Affordable Care Act's health insurance exchanges "by the end of 2013."
That certainly isn't what people expected when they heard President Obama say that they could keep their plans if they liked their plans. Finally, Mr. Carney said that "it was always understood" that significant changes would happen if the Affordable Care Act passed. If that's true, why did President Obama frequently tell people that they'd be able to keep their plans if they liked their plans? If it's understood, shouldn't Presidetn Obama have told people that?
The simple fact is that President Obama got caught lying. Now Mr. Carney is getting hit with questions questioning the administration's integrity. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Posted Saturday, November 2, 2013 1:44 PM
No comments.
The AP's odd reporting
Patrick Condon's article about Jim Knoblach's lawsuit is rather curiously worded. Here's the opening of the article:
A former Republican state representative sued Gov. Mark Dayton and the state of Minnesota on Thursday in an attempt to block the construction of a $90 million office building for the state Senate.
"To me, this is such a ridiculous case of a glaring waste of money," said Jim Knoblach, a St. Cloud businessman who served in the state House from 1995 to 2006.
But Knoblach's lawsuit does not address whether the new building is a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars. Rather, it claims the Legislature's Democratic majority violated the state Constitution by authorizing its construction in the tax bill, which isn't a typical means of approving large building projects.
Lawsuits challenging a bill's constitutionality aren't supposed to address whether something is "a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars." Lawsuits are supposed to talk about whether the DFL's decision to include a $90,000,000 bonding project in the Tax Bill violates Minnesota's Constitution. Specifically, it's supposed to address whether it violates Article IV, section 17 of the Minnesota Constitution, aka the Single Subject Provision.
In the past, courts have given the Legislature some latitude on things involving the Single Subject Provision. Recently, though, they've ruled that the legislature has taken some egregious liberties. Here are two examples cited by Representative Knoblach:
Recent laws struck down under this single subject provision include:
1) a prevailing wage provision authored by then Rep. Tom Bakk in the 1997 Omnibus Tax Bill (Associated Builders and Contractors v. Ventura; Minnesota Supreme Court, 2000);
2) the Minnesota Personal Protection Act when first included in a DNR technical correction bill (Unity Church v. State of Minnesota; Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005). The bill was struck down even though the Personal Protection Act was mentioned in the title.
Apparently, Tom Bakk ignored his oath of office when he included a prevailing wage provision in the 1997 Tax Bill. We'll come back to that in a minute. Rep. Bakk took an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution and the Minnesota State Constitution.
While there's no doubt that Bakk is a neanderthal, there's no doubt that he isn't ignorant, either. He's a big supporter of labor unions, which is likely why he included the prevailing wage provision in the 1997 Tax Bill. It's likely that he knew the prevailing wage provision wouldn't have passed on its own.
Fast forward to today:
Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, who championed the project, said previous state building projects were financed similarly and that legislative counsel vetted the financing for this project. "I fear the only result of this suit will be the waste of taxpayer resources on legal expenses and the potential costs associated with delaying" the project, Bakk said.
Sen. Bakk wanted to spend this money in the worst way because he wanted a shiny new office for himself. If it isn't his biggest fear, Sen. Bakk's biggest fear should be that the courts rule in Rep. Knoblach's favor.
If that happens, that'll be the second time the courts have slapped Sen. Bakk for ignoring the same provision of the Minnesota Constitution. That isn't the only thing Sen. Bakk should be worried about. Rep. Knoblach said that he could've filed the lawsuit on the basis that this is a bonding project. Bonding projects require getting 60% of the House to approve a project, then get 60% of the Senate's vote.
Sen. Bakk isn't the only Democrat who should be worried about Rep. Knoblach's lawsuit. Gov. Dayton should be worried, too. He could've line-item vetoed the new Senate Office Building's appropriation. He didn't, which means he a) didn't care about the Single-Subject Provision and b) thought spending $90,000,000 on a shiny new Senate Office Building was a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayers' money.
Knoblach said he only wants the office building stripped from the tax bill, but acknowledged a judge could decide to throw out the entire thing. That would undo this year's income tax increases on upper income earners, and a state subsidy of up to $525 million to aid in a multibillion dollar Mayo Clinic plan to grow the city of Rochester.
I don't know the likelihood of the Minnesota Supreme Court throwing out the entire Tax Bill. If they did that, though, it'd create an incredible mess. It would mean the legislature would have to pass the business-to-business sales tax increases during an election year. It'd mean they'd have to pass all of the major tax increases again just prior to an election.
Sen. Bakk and Gov. Dayton have their fingerprints all over this waste of money. While I hope the courts strike this down, this is a huge millstone around the DFL's necks, especially Gov. Dayton and Sen. Bakk. If Gov. Dayton tries telling people he didn't veto out the expenditure because he wanted to sign the Tax Bill, I'll clobber him by saying he had the authority to veto the bonding money because it's an appropriation. He could've kept the law intact.
Posted Saturday, November 2, 2013 6:41 PM
No comments.
Agreeing -- and disagreeing -- with Sen. Durbin
In a single paragraph, I find justification to agree with Sen. Durbin -- and find justification to disagree with Sen. Durbin. This article provides us with Sen. Durbin's quotes:
Democrats see the approach, which focuses on oversight hearings, as a not-so-veiled attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act. "They hate this law," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said of GOP lawmakers. "They want it to fail. They're praying for chaos to affirm their suspicions that it's the wrong thing for America. Now, when they criticize the rollout as not being smooth and not being fair to the American people, it rings hollow."
Sen. Durbin is right. I want the Affordable Care Act to fail. Apart from that, whether I want it to fail or not, the Affordable Care Act is likely to fail because a) it's expensive to families and to the state and federal governments, b) the bill that was passed wasn't meant to be the final bill, which means it has tons of flaws, and c) 'young healthies' aren't buying into the individual mandate. Without 'young healthies', the bill collapses.
As for Republicans praying for the Affordable Care Act's collapse, that's nonsense. It'll collapse on its own. Prayer isn't needed when it's a poorly written catastrophe.
Sen. Durbin's whining that Republicans' honest criticism of the Affordable Care Act's policies "rings hollow" is absurd but it's all that Democrats have left. The Democrats shoved imitation health care reform down the American people's throats against their will. It was a disaster waiting to happen. Now that its provisions are kicking in, the disaster is unfolding.
The bill that the Democrats passed without seeking bipartisan input and incompetently implemented is unfolding as the disaster it was destined to be. The principles that this bill was built on have failed before wherever they've been attempted. Wisely, Republicans steered clear of the impending train wreck.
In most instances, they predicted the calamities that are happening now. This isn't surprising. It wasn't just predictable. It was predicted. Few of the Republicans' predictions (I can't think of any ) have been proven false.
What's been fun for me is watching liberal fools like Rep. Frank Pallone attempting to defend the indefensible Affordable Care Act. The more he fought, the worse things get for the administration. They apparently haven't taught Democrats the first rule of holes, which is to stop digging.
Instead, Democrats are handing out shovels like a supervisor at a CCC project.
The Affordable Care Act's problems aren't caused by whether Republicans are cheering for the Affordable Care Act's failure or whether they're just sitting silent. The ACA's biggest problem is the ACA's policies.
Contrary to Sen. Durbin's whining, that's the single biggest obstacle facing the ACA.
Posted Saturday, November 2, 2013 7:34 PM
No comments.
Liberal foolishness, Part II
This post is proof that Democrats are reactionary fools. They aren't problem solvers and they certainly don't get the fact that profits matter. Here's proof:
FYI last night at the Great Falls Grange debate, Democrat delegate candidate Kathleen Murphy said that since many doctors are not accepting Medicaid and Medicare patients, she advocates making it a legal requirement for those people to be accepted.
That's what reactionary liberals think. Apparently, Ms. Murphy didn't think this through. If she had, she would've figured it out that Medicare and Medicaid payments cause doctors, clinics and hospitals to lose money.
If Ms. Murphy's hair-brained proposal became law, it wouldn't fix problems. First, it wouldn't solve the doctor shortage problem that currently exists. Telling young students that the government can force doctors into doing things that will lose doctors money is the quickest way of guaranteeing further doctor shortages. Why take out tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to go through med school, then residency, then be told that the federal government will dictate your income-earning ability?
The Bible says that "A workman is worthy of his wages." Apparently, Ms. Murphy and other reactionary liberals disagree.
Second, Ms. Murphy's proposal wouldn't fix the problems with Medicare and Medicaid. Within 10 years, there'd be fewer rural hospitals and doctors. Ms. Murphy's proposal might help her feel better for doing something but it wouldn't fix the problem. If clinics, doctors and hospitals don't get paid more, the problem will continue.
Thoroughly thought through conservatism doesn't always work but surely-we-must-do-something liberalism rarely works. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, people are getting an extended view of what the nanny state with brass knuckles looks like. It isn't a pretty sight.
Ms. Murphy shouldn't be taken seriously as a candidate. It's apparent that she doesn't have a clue about solving major problems. If she's this foolish with big issues, then she's there to do what her party bosses tell her to do.
That isn't what Virginia needs.
Posted Sunday, November 3, 2013 12:37 PM
No comments.
Bakk's biggest blunder?
Senate Majority Leader Bakk issued this statement about Rep. Jim Knoblach's lawsuit :
'This lawsuit does not contain any legitimate concerns. The legislation authorizing construction of the new legislative building adjacent to the Capitol was included in the public finance section of the tax bill. Public finance provisions have been an established component of tax bills for decades. This legislation is consistent with authorizing legislation for similar construction projects that have been completed under the supervision of the Minnesota Department of Administration. Moreover, it was vetted by legislative counsel and public finance experts at Minnesota Management and Budget and passed by both bodies of the legislature before being signed into law by the Governor.
I fear the only result of this suit will be the waste of taxpayer resources on legal expenses and the potential costs associated with delaying the construction project.
Nevertheless, I remain encouraged by the bi-partisan effort taking place to design and deliver a modern legislative building that will enhance Minnesota's tradition of public participation in government.'
Let's remember that then-Rep. Bakk ignored the Single-Subject Provision of Minnesota's Constitution in 1997:
Recent laws struck down under this single subject provision include:
1) a prevailing wage provision authored by then Rep. Tom Bakk in the 1997 Omnibus Tax Bill (Associated Builders and Contractors v. Ventura; Minnesota Supreme Court, 2000
Thats' why Sen. Bakk's legal opinion isn't trustworthy. Sen. Bakk wanted a new office building. That's shameful. The DFL, under the 'leadership' of Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and Speaker Thissen, have spent taxpayers' money foolishly. The proposed Senate Office Building isn't needed. It's a luxury.
In Sen. Bakk's words, he thinks the lawsuit is a waste of taxpayers' money. I totally disagree. Letting politicians know that taxpayers are watching is worthwhile. Letting Democrat politicians know that they can't do whatever it takes to pass their pet pork projects is worthwhile, too. Spending $90,000,000 on a building we don't need is a waste of taxpayers' money. Sen. Bakk knows that.
There's another facet to this proposed project. Sen. Bakk didn't have the votes to pass a big bonding bill. After counting the votes, he shifted the project into the Tax Bill. That's proof that Sen. Bakk wouldn't hesitate in using his entire bag of tricks to get his pet pork project passed.
Bonding bills aren't like other bills because they require at least 81 votes in the House and at least 41 votes in the Senate. There's no way Republicans would've supported the Senate Office Building project, which meant Sen. Bakk's pet pork project would've gotten defeated.
That's a defeat Sen. Bakk couldn't tolerate because he needed to be winning in order to get as much of his agenda included in the final budget as possible. A stinging defeat for Sen. Bakk would've greatly diminished his political capital heading into budget negotiations against Speaker Thissen. That's why he didn't hesitate in ignoring the Constitution's Single Subject Provision.
BTW, yes, Sen. Bakk saw budget negotiations as a fight between himself and Speaker Thissen. At best, they tolerate each other. At worst, they're at each other's throats. This isn't speculation. Capitol insiders have known this for years.
Posted Sunday, November 3, 2013 8:18 PM
Comment 1 by Patrick at 04-Nov-13 07:20 AM
...retired labor official - speaks volumes of where his loyalties lie.
