posted March 14, 2014 11:54 AM            

So the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress, gave us the Affordable Care Act. And they did it with such urgency that they didn't care that not a single Republican in Congress voted for it, and they didn't care that it took legislative chicanery to pass it despite the Democrat super-majority. Nope, the millions of uncovered Americans desperate for affordable health insurance just couldn't wait any longer.

So when the Obamacare exchanges finally opened for business in October, of course the tens of millions of insurance-starved Americans stampeded over each other to sign up and finally get covered.

Except they didn't.

The reality has been shocking even to the biggest Obamacare detractors. A McKinsey Report estimates that just 10 percent of the roughly 4 million enrollees in the ACA are people that did not previously have health insurance. Just 1 in 10!

Those 40 million to 50 million Americans just clamoring for health coverage that the Democrats have been telling us about since the 1940s have turned into just about 400,000 people who have bothered to sign up so far. And how much do you want to bet that those 400,000 will end up making up the lion's share of the up to 900,000 enrollees who have failed to actually pay for their new coverage?

The experts have come up with several good explanations for the lack of interest among the uninsured. They point to the expensive premium and deductible prices, confusing rules, and of course the failed Healthcare.gov website launch.

But here's something no one seems to be addressing, and it's truly the elephant in the room when it comes to people who refuse to get covered now, refused to get covered before Obamacare, and will continue not to get covered forever: You can't fix stupid.

We spend a lot of tax money in this country trying to stamp out stupid with varying degrees of success. But no matter how much we spend and how hard we try, millions of Americans will still smoke, drink to excess, drink and drive, eat unhealthy food, and refuse to be responsible enough to tend to their health and health coverage. And there isn't any website, commercial, or funny viral video on Earth that will change their minds.

So we should stop trying so hard.

The universal individual mandate has always been the weakest operational and theoretical aspect of the ACA, so much so that Chief Justice John Roberts had to come up with the crazy idea of reclassifying the entire thing as a tax just to keep it alive. It's a ruling most Americans and Roberts himself will regret for decades to come.

Our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom in this country isn't just a slogan. It means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The freedom to be smart, and the freedom to be stupid. And just because you can't fix stupid, it doesn't mean we should try to fix or amend freedom.

Unfortunately, that's just what Obamacare does by taking money from the responsible portion of society in an attempt to force feed responsibility to another. That's the thing about responsibility: It can't be imposed or transferred from one to another.

President Obama has unilaterally changed the rules of the ACA several times in the past 12 months. There will be more changes to come, including a possible long delay or outright abolition of the entire individual mandate. When — and if — that happens, don't pay attention to all the inevitable excuses that will address everything from blaming bad websites to anti-tea party conspiracy theories.

The real reason will be that the government can't fix stupid without killing freedom. And, as far to the left as America has drifted lately, we haven't quite gone off the deep end.

— By Jake Novak

posted March 18, 2014 10:44 AM            

I do not like this kind of hope. And we won't take it nope, nope, nope,"
~Sarah Palin~

We overhauled U.S. health care — to insure 4.2 million people?
By Joseph Curl
The Washington Times
Sunday, March 16, 2014

46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”

He said it dozens more times, including in June 2013: “We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children.”

The Obama administration pumped the number with official reports. The White House Council of Economic Advisers said, “Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance.” The Census Bureau got in on the act, too, saying some 48 million Americans lacked health insurance.

It was official: Nearly 15 percent of America’s 313 million citizens had no coverage and were, as Mr. Obama loved to say over and over to hype the fear, “one illness away from financial ruin.”

So, he created Obamacare. The crux of the biscuit: The United States would completely change its entire health care system to make sure those 46 million got insured. Well, at least that’s what every rational American thought. If there are 46 million uninsured, and the president and Congress are overhauling the system, it must be to solve the whole problem — not just part of it.

But last week came word that with just 15 days left for people to enroll for federal coverage, just 4.2 million had. The math is simple: That’s just 9 percent of the supposedly 46 million uninsured.

“It will be a larger number than that by the end of March,” Mr. Obama promised in an interview with WebMD. “At this point, enough people are signing up that the Affordable Care Act is going to work.”

Still, the obvious question is: We changed the $2.7 trillion health care system to sign up 4.2 million people?

While the president has opted to press class warfare and income inequality in the weeks leading up to the Obamacare sign-up cutoff date of March 31, he has made an effort to enroll the people most needed to make the federal program work: the young.

He did an ask-me-anything on Reddit.com, popped up on “Between Two Ferns” with Zach Galifianakis, introduced a segment on the popular show “Cosmos,” even invited ‘N Sync singer Lance Bass to the White House to “discuss” health care.

But the young have not flocked to the Web page to sign up for insurance that, even with a hefty federal subsidy, will still cost them more than not paying anything. And anyone with teenagers or 20-somethings knows that they don’t do anything unless they’re absolutely forced to (Zach didn’t actually tell them to go sign up, just the pushy president, again).

What’s more, it turns out many of those signing up to the program already had insurance. “Few uninsured Americans are gaining coverage under Obamacare,” CNN reported in early March. Just 27 percent of the enrollees were previously uninsured, according to a survey conducted in February by McKinsey & Co.

To top it all off, reports have emerged that many of the enrollees are more elderly and more unhealthy, which is likely to tax the system heavily just as it gets started.

What’s surprising is how little the mainstream media cares. The White House now says it was hoping to enroll 8 million in the first year — but does anyone remember that being a big selling point as the president crisscrossed the country scaring Americans? And no one in the MSM blinked an eye when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that in 2023, Obamacare will still have left 31 million people without health insurance while adding more than $1.7 trillion in federal spending.

In a wonderfully timed plea, Mr. Obama is asking Americans to give him money so that he can push his signature policy.

“Chip in before it’s too late. What we do right now determines how aggressive we can make our final push for health care this month.” You can give $15 or $5,000. But your president is begging: “Make a donation — and let’s finish what we started.”

posted March 18, 2014 10:54 AM            

I suspect that private insurance is now shutting out those who cannot pay for real.

posted March 19, 2014 10:30 AM            

Dems and Obamacare
Dems and Obamacare (Scott Stantis / March 13, 2014)

The message for Democrats from this week's special election for a U.S. House seat in Florida was clear: Talking about a fix for Obamacare will not move voters. Democrats are going to have to do it.

Democrat Alex Sink had plenty of advantages in the special election in a district based in Pinellas County: high name recognition, more campaign cash than her opponent, a district that President Barack Obama carried twice and an opponent who had been a, um, lobbyist.

But Republican David Jolly said he would vote to repeal Obamacare. Sink said she wanted to change or delay elements of the law. Voters said the law was one of the most important issues facing the country ... and they elected Jolly.

Democrats, you need more than vague promises to repair this unwieldy and unpopular law. You need to work with Republicans — yes, Republicans — to fundamentally redefine it.

From the disastrous online rollout, to the thousands of policy cancellations, to the sticker shock over insurance costs, to the sudden squeeze on doctor and hospital networks, to the legally questionable administration-ordered changes and delays in the law, people have seen its profound flaws.

The Obama administration has been busy changing the law at will. The latest retreat: The administration said last week it will allow consumers who are clinging to health insurance policies that don't comply with Obamacare rules to keep those policies into 2017. That's three more years that people can retain insurance that Democrats had dismissed as "junk."

That extension had an obvious political intent: to avoid a spate of policy cancellations right before the November election.

But after the Florida results, we'd guess Democratic candidates have a Sink-ing feeling.

So many of them say they want to fix Obamacare. Well, fix it. Do it through legislation, through the law, not through administration sleight of hand.

Start by permanently scrapping the coverage mandates on businesses and individuals. Embrace the recent proposal by Republican Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Orrin Hatch of Utah that would preserve a key benefit — insurers can't deny people coverage because of pre-existing conditions — but would emphasize individual responsibility over government fiat. People who bought insurance would have a guarantee that their policies would be renewed, but those who didn't buy insurance would be at risk to pay higher premium rates if they later were injured or became ill.

The Senate GOP plan would create a vibrant marketplace by freeing insurers to offer a wider range of plans. Consumers would enjoy more coverage and price options than under Obamacare. Customers — not the government — would select the best plans for their needs and pocketbooks.

The open enrollment period for Obamacare closes at the end of March. We'll soon see how many Americans signed up and paid for coverage — particularly how many previously uninsured people bought coverage. Preliminary figures show that many of the uninsured aren't buying, probably because the coverage is not affordable. Many young people are keeping their wallets closed. If they don't buy, the economics of the law won't work. That will put more pressure on the premiums paid by people who are insured.

posted March 19, 2014 03:53 PM            

Plenty of happy people out there despite the continual suggestion of the republican machine that all is lost for the ACA. I predict it will only improve in future, though many will continue to complain
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/18/republicans-announce-passing-legislation-year.html

posted March 20, 2014 12:57 AM            

You must be kidding! There are fewer Americans insured today than there were when O'Bomber and his Socialist comrades crammed O'BomberCare down America's throat.

In fact, there are fewer Americans insured today than there were in October, 2013 when the crap sandwich..O'BomberCare went into effect.

And, of those phantom 5 million O'Bomber says signed up for the crap sandwich, more than 20% never made their first premium payments...let alone their 2nd.

The crap sandwich is a disaster and it's going to be a bigger disaster for the Socialist comrades in November.

posted March 20, 2014 11:06 AM            

Hark, here's one of those "happy people", now approaching on your six.

O'BomberCare, Will Pitt of TruthOut was all for O'BomberCare...until he experienced O'BomberCare. Now, all he can say is FU.

Another leftist mugged by reality.

The thread Pitt posted at Democrat Underground got so toxic they shut it down to hide it from view. Apparently, there's no place in far left Loonsville for those attacking the Marxist Messiah or his crap sandwich..O'BomberCare.

Notorious Will Pitt Turns Angrily Against Obamacare
By P.J. Gladnick
March 19, 2014

Harry Reid is going to have a hard time portraying Will Pitt as a Koch brothers shill...

William Rivers Pitt, a leftwing editor at TruthOut, whose foibles have been chronicled in NewsBusters and is probably best known for his journalism "scoop" of predicting the indictment of Karl Rove on May 12, 2006, is back in the spotlight again. While waiting 24 business hours to elapse for the Rove indictment to finally take place, Pitt shocked many at the Democratic Underground by posting an extremely angry attack, What I've learned about the Affordable Care Act, upon Obamacare due to a bad personal experience with it. In order to fully appreciate how far Pitt has turned against Obamacare, we need to go to his DU post back in December when he was proclaiming his love for Obama's signature plan...before he even experienced it:

Well, I just had my first experience with the Healthcare.gov website...

Creating a user name and account: easy.

Plowing through all the questions: easy.

Alas, I logged out to track down some personal info, and when I tried to log back in, it said the system was currently down.

...but then, Ermahgerd! A phone number: 800-318-2596

And it's toll-free, too!

So I'll be calling in the morning to finish the process.

No. Big. Deal.

Thanks, Obama.

Yes, Pitt was thanking Obama before he had personally experienced Obamacare. And now, after having his Obamacare Moment, Pitt has moved from praising to cursing the President. A warning for those with tender sensibilities: although I have cleaned up Pitt's harsh language, many will still find it offensive:

What I've learned after a three-month war with these fiends: the ACA says the insurance companies cannot deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, which is true as far as it goes. But they can deny coverage for the life-saving medications necessary to treat those conditions. The insurance company I signed up with through the ACA exchange just denied coverage of my wife's multiple sclerosis medication. We're "covered," to the tune of $700 a month...just not for what she really needs.

A cozy loophole, that.

F--- you, insurance industry.

F--- you, Mr. President, you piece of sh*t used-car salesman.

From my heart and soul, f--- you.

Wow! And while some of his fellow DUers sympathized with Pitt, many attacked him for his "heresy" in slamming Obama:

Pitt is just playing to a certain crowd looking to be popular

But coming on DU and getting all dramatic and pouty? It's an old act, Will--it's immature and it's not getting that "Ooooh....ahhhhhhhhhh" reaction anymore. No, the ACA is not perfect but YOU didn't do your due diligence, either. And calling the POTUS childish names isn't going to fix your situation, it just makes you look like a petulant jerk.

I am feeling a bit scared for him if that is him. I hope he was hacked. We democrats are supposed to be above the juvenile name calling(***What, Huh, Duh***) and be proactive with finding solutions. We can solve this problem if we work together. We all want single payer.

So does Pitt feel like a fool for his previous support of Obamacare? You bet he does to the extent that he wishes he could travel back in a time machine to correct himself:

I long for a time machine.

I helped, in my own small way, to promote this thing, because of the pre-existing conditions aspect that would benefit my wife. I feel like a f---ing dupe.

On edit: I AM a f---ing dupe. Last time that happens.

Pitt's attacks upon Obamacare became so harsh that he had to be removed from posting more on his own thread with this pronouncement of limited excommunication:

The OP has been silenced. Post hidden and OP locked out. There won't be any more responses on this thread from him.

posted March 24, 2014 09:05 AM            

"There was a crooked man and he walked a crooked mile,
He found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse.
And they all lived together in a little crooked house."

March 24, 2014
Leading scientific body to review its support for global warming 'consensus'
Thomas Lifson

The so-called “consensus” among scientists supporting anthropogenic global warming climate change may take a fatal hit.

The American Physical Society, a leading scientific organization in the field of physics with 50,000 members, has appointed a balanced panel to review its stance. Investors Business Daily reports:

At the risk of being accused of embracing what alarmists call the flat-earth view of climate change, the American Physical Society has appointed a balanced, six-person committee to review its stance on so-called climate change that includes three distinguished skeptics: Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen. Their credentials are impressive.

Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and was a lead author of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Curry is a professor and chairwoman of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT from 1983 to 2013, is currently a distinguished senior fellow in the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.

A question the American Physical Society panel will address is one we ask repeatedly: Why wasn't the current global temperature stasis, with no discernible change in the past 15 years, not predicted by any of the climate models used by the IPCC, part of the United Nations?

Usually, when a scientific theory makes a prediction and that prediction fails to come true, the theory is considered to have been proven false. The warmists argue that something they call a “pause” is underway, but the problem is that nobody predicted such a pause cold be possible.

Other questions the panel will be asked to address:

The APS announcement lists among its questions to be answered: "How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models?"

In a nod to the likelihood that nature, not man, calls the shots, another APS audit question asks the panel: "What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the stasis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (i.e., sunspot activity) in about a century?"

posted March 24, 2014 08:21 PM            

Ever heard about the baby and the bathwater?