She clings to the idea that Comrade Zero is a nice young man who cares, who tries hard, but “it’s all those crooked politicians in Washington!” who keep him from being our Hero. But she’s also been very upset that “the whole country’s going Communist!”

I told her about my disastrous foray into the NY State Exchange (which doesn’t work), and she immediately said, “I have Medicare. That won’t be affected.”

But the Obama Administration has siphoned off [an initial] $700 billion from Medicare’s budget, have they not?

It’s been a while, but, as I recall, the argument went something like this: The state made a lot of money from selling cigarettes, either directly — in some countries tobacco was a state monopoly — or indirectly, through taxes. Lung cancer came late in a person’s working life and tended to kill people quickly, so the workers would die off fairly cheaply, and before they could collect much of a pension.

I don’t doubt that some civil servants understood this arithmetic, but don’t know enough about any of the political leaders to know whether they did.

(I wish no one smoked, but I also think we have gone a little too far in taxing and harrassing smokers.)

This poll might be some indication of the answer:

Romney topped Obama 49 percent to 45 percent among registered voters in the Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday. Among all Americans, the 2012 rivals would be tied, at 47 percent.

The only poll that counts, though, is the one on election day.

A very good question, whose answer is that Obama & Co. very systematically lied about just about everything of any importance in order to totally, cheat, flim-flamm, and con the American people and to steal the 2012 election.

The fact that government statistics were “cooked’ is enormously important, because the statistics churned out by the Federal Government’s statistical apparatus effect virtually every aspect of government, our economy, and society, from the number and apportionment of Congressional districts and, therefore, the number of votes each state’s delegation has–this apportionment is determined by the Census, to the rate of inflation–which is used to set things like annual cost of living increases for Social Security and other government pensions and annuities, to income statistics–which are used to help calculate the poverty line each year–which also determines just how many more people are considered to be ”poor” i.e. “under the poverty line” and, therefore, eligible for a cornucopia of government benefits, as well there are the various ways of measuring the employment and unemployment rate, and then, of course there are all the economic series that are supposed to give everyone–in government and out–an accurate picture of our economy that can be used for planning purposes.

It appears that very early on–starting with the little remarked fight early in Obama’s first term over Obama‘s nominee to run the Census bureau and his approaches to collecting Census information–Obama & Co. realized that it was critical for them to seize the Federal Statistical Apparatus, so that it would paint a picture of our economy and developments in our society that would further Obama & Co.’s interests.

It is starting to appear that their seizure and corruption of this extremely important, formerly pretty honest and objective reporting apparatus was a success.

This is true. They are not simply pro-utopia, they are anti-capitalist. That is unless, as Matt_SE points out above (@4:35), it’s the state making decisions based upon profitability (i.e., the death panels of Obamacare). The more one examines the “progressive” mindse tthe more one finds out it’s all about hypocrisy and control.

It’s not even MOSTLY true that they are trying to protect profits, which are only like 2-6% in the insurance industry. Because the profits are so slim to begin with, an insurance company that agrees to pay for the HC of a person with a known preexisting condition is not just failing to make a profit on that customer, they are incurring a potentially massive loss. The loss could effectively wipe out the 2-6% profit earned on 20 other policyholders. So now they have “insured” 21 customers without making a dime.

At some point, businesses have to make money. The left just doesn’t seem to ever accept this, even in principle.

I’ve written here before that there were indications that occasionally managed to surface in the media that Obama & Co.’s partisans/operatives we’re “cooking” the formerly well regarded statistical measures on our economy put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census–a la the Old U.S.S.R. and China–for use as justification for this or that program, or to show such programs achieving results.

Now comes this story today about at least one person–somehow I don’t’ think that the Departments of Census or Labor want to look any closer at this, and to discover just how many others might have also been doing some “cooking” of their own–was deliberately inflating the number of people who were employed in order to portray the employment situation as better than it was, just before the 2012 election (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/11/welch-was-right-team-obama-fudged-unemployment-numbers-one-month-before-election/), something he says he was told to do by “higher ups.”

Been in the insurance business forty years. Chewing does have a health downside and in the insurance companies’ large numbers, it makes a difference. In addition, the nicotine screens don’t differntiate, so a smoker claiming he chews can’t be contradicted.
Life insurance, disability income insurance, and underwritten health insurance all surcharge for smokers.
WRT gays: Years ago, I ran into an old underwriting manual which said they’d prefer not to write gays. With their unusual lifestyle they were not likely to be able to consistently keep up the premiums and the life companies will tell you they don’t make money until the fifth-seventh year of the contract. This was pre-AIDS by maybe twenty-five years.
It is odd that some libs, who don’t have a problem with the nannystate interfering in lifestyles also don’t want the chosen lifestyle to be reflected in insurance or ANYTHING else if it has predictable, negative consequences. So the government can tell you how to live, but the real world is supposed to butt out.

Speak for yourself . . .