Not a pair of flattering photos—both of them looked a lot better when young. But hey, didn’t we all?
Enjoy
The part with the interpreter is funny stuff:
Uncle Obamacare wants YOU!
There’s a portion of the NY Times article I discussed in my previous post that deserves a post of its own. Here’s the excerpt from the Times [emphasis mine]:
…[M]any of the New York policies being canceled meet and often exceed the [Obamacare] standards, brokers say. The rationale for disqualifying those policies, said Larry Levitt, a health policy expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, was to prevent associations from selling insurance to healthy members who are needed to keep the new health exchanges financially viable.
Siphoning those people, Mr. Levitt said, would leave the pool of health exchange customers “smaller and disproportionately sicker,” and would drive up rates.
Contemplate that for a moment. I can’t think of a clearer and more succinct example of the callous and manipulative mindset behind Obamacare and social engineering in general. People are pawns to be moved around on a large board. We needed these people here, so liberty and choice can be jettisoned for them.
We said they could keep their plans? Tough. We said later that the plans that were cancelled as a result of Obamacare were only the “junk,” substandard ones? Well, guess what: we lied. Tough again.
It’s for the greater good, after all. As the august Nancy Pelosi would say, embrace the suck.
Previously privileged New Yorkers who supported Obamacare…
…discover that Obamacare means they’ll be losing some of their privileges:
Many in New York’s professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama’s health care plan…They are part of an unusual, informal health insurance system that has developed in New York, in which independent practitioners were able to get lower insurance rates through group plans, typically set up by their professional associations or chambers of commerce. That allowed them to avoid the sky-high rates in New York’s individual insurance market, historically among the most expensive in the country.
But under the Affordable Care Act, they will be treated as individuals, responsible for their own insurance policies. For many of them, that is likely to mean they will no longer have access to a wide network of doctors and a range of plans tailored to their needs. And many of them are finding that if they want to keep their premiums from rising, they will have to accept higher deductible and co-pay costs or inferior coverage.
Will this constitute the proverbial being “mugged by reality”? Perhaps for some, but my guess is not for most. Despite being writers, lawyers, and even doctors, these people didn’t do their homework about Obamacare before the law was passed. They relied on the MSM and their trusted liberal politicians and pundits to describe it for them instead. Why change their minds now, just because they got hurt by it? For most people, it takes more than that to effect political change of mind on a more permanent, substantive basis.
Roy Lyons, managing director of Marsh U.S. Consumer, an insurance brokerage, said he had heard complaints from physicians, lawyers, pharmacists and optometrists. “At first they think it’s the bar association making the decision or the insurance company doing it,” Mr. Lyons said. “We have to explain that this is the Affordable Care Act; that’s what was put into law. Once they understand, they’re less emotional, but they’re not happy with it.”
And isn’t it interesting that lawyers and doctors have to have this explained to them?
More doctors will be getting the bad news soon, too:
The medical society has not yet formally notified its solo practitioners, because their insurance plans do not expire until April. But those letters will be going out soon, officials said.
I find the following quote to be rather mind-boggling in several ways:
Ms. Meinwald, the lawyer, said she was a lifelong Democrat who still supported better health care for all, but had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney.
How could this woman not have already known what “was in store for her”? Also, although a bleeding-heart liberal, she seems to vote only on how something affects her. Where’s your liberal altruism, lady? Or maybe she’s coming to suspect that the whole thing’s a scam, and that Obamacare doesn’t actually benefit the majority of people.
Was Meinwald under the impression that you could add millions of people to the insurance rolls, give them subsidies, not raise taxes, and everyone would come out ahead? Maybe she thought the only losers would be the fat cats, and that she wasn’t quite fat enough. Turns out she was.
[ADDENDUM: By the way, you could add millions to the insurance rolls and come out ahead as long as those millions were very very healthy people who could pay their own way and who would never make claims of any importance. That is the philosophy behind wooing the “young invincibles.” Unfortunately for Obama, most of them not only don’t want health insurance (and the penalties for not buying it are both relatively small and relatively unenforceable), but a great many need subsidies. But most importantly of all, they are outnumbered by other groups signing up for Obamacare: the already-sick, those who are older and more likely to develop health problems even if they are presently in good health, and the poor—some of whom are getting Medicaid, some of whom get hefty subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges.]
South Africa: we don’t need no steenking security
Security at the Mandela memorial? It wasn’t just lax; it was apparently virtually nonexistent:
Britain’s The Independent newspaper reported that “thousands of guests entering the FNB stadium in Soweto on Tuesday, especially those who had arrived very early, were not searched.” In addition, members of the media “were permitted to enter the press area directly beneath where politicians and dignitaries were seated without being asked to show passes.” And the Daily Mail reported that “the first crowds entered the stadium without being searched…
The South African government promised tight security for the event. “Working off plans developed for years in secret, the South African government is using an elite military task force, sniper teams and canine teams to help secure the stadium,” CNN reported before the event. “In addition, helicopters and military jets frequently fly overhead.”
It was a show of security. But it wasn’t security.”
Potemkin security, in other words. It was mere luck that nothing terrible occurred. I wonder, if it hadn’t been for the obviousness of the sign language interpreter brouhaha, whether the lax security would ever have been revealed at all.
I also wonder whether the Secret Service does its own checks, and how Obama was allowed to enter a situation so fraught with peril. There’s a hint in the article:
Before the event, CNN reported that a “Secret Service spokesman noted that while the agency’s preference is to bring their own metal detectors to such events, they do not have authority over local law enforcement in foreign countries and would be working with South African officials on security matters.”
Even as Obama flew to South Africa, White House officials confidently told reporters that the South African government could take care of things. “The sheer number of leaders appearing in the same place at one time raises numerous logistical and security challenges, but the White House expressed confidence in the South African government’s ability to handle the event,” CNN reported. “‘We have not heard any concerns,’ Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One. ‘The South Africans hosted the World Cup, so they have experience hosting significant crowds and managing events like this.'”
And I also wonder whether they’ll be more careful before sending Obama to future events in third-world countries, or whether they’ll fail to learn anything from this experience.
The Lie of the Year
Politifact says it’s: “If you like you health care plan, you can keep it.”
Can’t argue with that selection, really—except that there were so many other excellent ones from which to choose.
All the shills in the press or in political life who touted the wonders of Obamacare without ever once really taking a good look at it deserve their own “lie of the year” or maybe “lie of the decade” awards. But it’s too late to matter; Obama was re-elected on the strength of their lies—and/or their omissions—about his lies.
The Arapahoe shooter…
…appears to have been acting alone and was not reported to have telegraphed any particular warning signs, mental illness, or violent tendencies. Good student, excellent debater—who had been kicked off the debating team and was seeking revenge.
That certainly can’t be a common denominator for school shootings. Nor, it seems, could this particular crime have been predicted in any way:
Pierson — who was described as exceptionally bright but difficult and argumentative — was upset about being booted from the debate team.
Minne said the senior had a combative personality.
“He was always the type that wanted to be right. He would always argue with the teacher about scholastic things, whatever we were talking about he always had something to say. Never wanted anyone to tell him he was wrong. I definitely noticed that in the classes I was in with him,” Minne said. “He spoke intelligently, he’s a smart guy, I think he did pretty well in school, he was just kinda weird. … He wasn’t a violent person, he was just verbally aggressive.”
Pierson’s neighbor said he was quiet and seemed like a nice boy but they didn’t really know him well.
The only person Pierson killed was himself, although a student he shot is in critical condition. Librarian Murphy—who was head of the debating team and who seems to have been Pierson’s intended target—was uninjured.
Oh, and of course the left would like to make some sort of political hay of the tragedy. But unfortunately for them, Pierson was a socialist and/or a Keynesian. Some newspaper accounts are murky about this; some mention unspecified “strong political beliefs” and seem to want you to figure it out yourself, because what those beliefs might be are mentioned only quite far along in the articles.
For the record, I don’t suppose that Pierson’s political beliefs had much influence on his violence one way or another; I think the motivation was personal and ultimately suicidal in nature. But I have no doubt that, had Pierson’s beliefs been on the right, they would have been emphasized in news reports of the shooting.
Megyn Kelly is driving them crazy
By now Megyn Kelly of Fox has become so popular that, right on schedule, comes the inevitable flap—about a segment on Kelly’s show concerning whether Santa and Jesus were white. I’ll pass by the substantive [sic] issues and just say that the discussion was notable mainly for Kelly’s critics’ risible assertion that Jews are not white—who knew? (And yes, Ethiopian Jews aren’t white, but Jesus was not Ethiopian.)
Even the WaPo‘s Dan Zak has been charmed by Megyn, whose ratings have been fabulous ever since her new show debuted two months ago. I’ve long been a fan—she’s really just about the only newsperson whose program I watch regularly.
Kelly is an unusual combination. To begin with, one can’t ignore the fact that she’s not just attractive but absolutely gorgeous, with a figure to match (despite having three kids, the youngest of whom is only four months old). But that’s just the beginning; even such beauty would pall after a while if it weren’t accompanied by a whip-smart intelligence and an astounding aggressiveness that almost never segues into obnoxiousness. How does Kelly manage to combine hard-driving, rat-a-tat interviewing with a winning and natural ease of manner? I don’t know, but it’s her great gift.
Zak’s article indicates that Kelly has always been ambitious and has long known exactly who she is, and that she presents that self without falseness on camera. Maybe that’s her secret. I do know that I usually watch TV news people interviewing guests and grind my teeth, thinking “You should ask such-and-such! Why don’t you point out such-and-such?” With Kelly I don’t have to yell at the TV screen, urging her to call her guests on their BS—that’s her specialty, and she does it better than anyone else on TV, at the same time often coaxing a reluctant smile from guests when they see they’ve been bested again by the endearing Megyn.
[ADDENDUM: And the spelling of her first name may just drive me crazy. I’ve fixed it.]
North Korea execution
The number two man in North Korea, leader Kim Jong Un’s uncle Jang Song Thaek, has been executed, presumably on orders of his ungrateful nephew.
North Korea is a cesspool and somewhat of an information black hole. The charges against Jang were various, and ranged from serious to trivial (or at least what we would think of as trivial; no offense is trivial in North Korea). But the charges are not all that meaningful, although the act is. There’s more:
Jang’s conviction was preceded by the reported executions last month of his two closest confidants. KCNA confirmed one ally’s purge Wednesday, calling Ri Ryong Ha a “flatterer” and stooge who with Jang was building an anti-Kim faction within the party.
The purge of Jang’s accused comrades will continue, state media said.
You bet they will.
Stalin used to do this sort of thing periodically, or perhaps even continually. Out with the old, in with the new—for a while, until it’s their turn to go. It also reminds me of many much earlier rulers such as Henry VIII, whose executions of two of his six wives have fascinated the general public so much (to this very day) that they have somewhat obscured the fact that he also executed quite a few of his advisors, for example Thomas Cromwell and Thomas More.
Not that I’m saying that Jang has much in common with those two, except that his fall illustrates the fact that getting too close to a mega-powerful ruler can ultimately be fatal.
The budget clears the House
I’m not going to write a lot about it, because I’ve already said my piece.
I will add once again that I don’t think this is the hill to die on at this point. To get what you want, you have to elect enough people to control Congress. That’s the bottom line. How to get there is a different story. But I don’t see how a civil war that ends up giving control to the Democrats can possibly help. I have no patience for rhetoric that condemns the Tea Party, and I have no patience for rhetoric from the Tea Party that refuses to face facts.
[NOTE: Interesting.]
Does anybody know how many people have actually enrolled in Obamacare so far?
Looks like the answer is “no.”
Some people have been counted more than once. Others have merely placed a plan in their shopping carts. Others think they’ve enrolled but probably have not. And we have no idea what percentage of the actual enrollees are high-risk patients or older patients rather than the young, healthy enrollees needed to make the plan viable.
Perhaps the government knows and just isn’t telling. Perhaps. But my guess is they don’t know either. They have announced the grand total to be 365,000, but it probably has about as much validity as the old Five-Year Plan reports of the Soviets.
January first isn’t too far away, and what will happen to all the uninsured, including the ones who think they’re insured but aren’t? Obama has asked insurance companies to be gentle with them and give them an extra-special grace period.
I’ve never believed government to be especially efficient at this sort of thing. There’s a saying about it, after all: “good enough for government work.” But this is ludicrous, although that’s probably not the right word because “ludicrous” implies an element of humor, and I can’t find much in this.
The term “Affordable Care Act,” which at one point seemed merely a drier term than the vernacular “Obamacare,” now seems positively Orwellian. “Affordable”? “Care”? Same for “Obamacare”; Obama only appeared to care. Years ago I created the category “health care reform” for all posts having to do with the ACA, Obamacare, whatever you want to call it. Now that category, too, seems Orwellian. Maybe it should read “health care deform” instead.
Obama and Castro: together again
Who would have thought a single comma—or lack thereof—would make such a difference?:
Britain’s Sky News posted this bulletin about the Nelson Mandela memorial service at 6:36 p.m. London time Tuesday: “Top stories: World leaders at Mandela tribute, Obama-Castro handshake and same-sex marriage date set.”
The British have a habit of eliminating the final comma in any list of elements separated by commas, the one right before the “and.” I have never liked this usage, which seems precious, pedantic, and needlessly confusing. Why should I write that previous sentence “precious, pedantic and needlessly confusing”? I’m generous (dare I say “liberal”?) with my commas—the more the merrier!