Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Obamacare unintended consequence #2

So the insurers claim the bill does not actually require them to cover children with pre-existing conditions. The bill merely states that if they insure children they must cover all their healthcare needs regardless of the time of onset.

Apparently, in haste to pass a 2,700 page bill that they had never read, our uber-intelligent legislators forgot the difference between coverage and guaranteed issue. Meaning, coverage need not be extended to sick children, but if it is, then all illness is covered.

The important part of this whole discussion is the definition of insurance. Insurance-A means of indemnity against a future occurrence of an uncertain event. Note the term uncertain. It is not insurance if you are merely providing a reimbursement mechanism for foreseeable expenses. That would be a risk pool. There is nothing wrong with a pool. It is a good method for spreading the costs among individuals who must use a service. But, it is not insurance. And forcing people who do not have a certain future event, but an uncertain one, into the same "insurance" plan as people with pre-existing conditions is merely socialistic redistribution of money from one individual to another.

Obamacare's first effect

We are starting to hear from companies about the first effect of Obamacare. Earnings are being dinged severely by the write-downs required for retiree pharmacy expenses. AT&T estimates $1 billion, Caterpillar $100 million, Deere & Co. $150 million, these are some of the largest. The Democrats cannot even legitimately claim they were unaware of this; Caterpillar published its expected $100 million write-down before the vote on the bill.

However, Henry Waxman is calling this a concerted effort on the part of Republican CEO's to make healthcare reform look bad. He is ordering these CEO's to testify before his committee so that he can preach at them about how irresponsible they are. I've always thought he was a total tool, but this proves it.

This is not an optional activity for these companies. They are required to do this by generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). If they do not make these write-downs they will be in violation of SEC rules. So here we have publicly traded companies complying with the rules they must abide be, and being called before Congress to explain why they are being so evil, and trying to make Obamacare look bad.

Just another Kafkaesque moment brought to you courtesy of the wonderful Democratic Party.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Is that you Cousin Mark?

I hadn't heard anything out of Cousin Mark in a while. He claims he's been really busy at work, but that sounds like an excuse to me. It's not like it's chemical engineering or anything.

His inartful question; would a Republican controlled SCOTUS possibly overturn parts or all of Obamacare?

I'm far from a constitutional scholar, but I believe the tension comes up between the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

My understanding, again, I'm far from an expert, is that the Supremacy Clause has been ascendant since the War of Northern Aggression ended. The question the Court will face is whether to reinvigorate the Tenth Amendment.

Personally, I feel the time is ripe for a new look at the Tenth Amendment. Long before healthcare reform the federal government had become much to intrusive in our personal lives, and in mandating activities to the States. However, the SCOTUS is generally reluctant to overturn any precedent, especially Supreme Court case law, even if the current Court may find nits to pick with said case law.

Death to Dems?

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says that as many as 10 Democratic members of the House have received death threats over their vote on healthcare reform.

I can only say that there are clearly some crazy people out there. Come on, go to the public meetings your Congress critter has over the break and give them an earful. Be rude, call them socialist pigs, but death threats are way out of line.

It's just politics. We are far enough removed from Republican Rome that we don't have to murder politicians we disagree with.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Healthcare. (what else could it be)

The Democrats had their way and passed this monstrosity of a healthcare bill. I don't doubt their motives in so doing. They did what they thought was the right thing. But, it is very much a left thing.

There is plenty of room for discussion on the issues, but the bottom line is that there are two divergent views of the direction our country should be taking. One is the progressive/liberal view of expanded government, and cradle to grave social programs. This is very much the European model. The other is the conservative view that the country was founded on individual rights and self-sufficiency. The healthcare bill is a victory for the former.

Despite the protestations of the liberals it is bald faced socialism. Socialism is the taking from the general population in order to redistribute "equally". The left has not had the temerity to properly label legislation since the adoption of Social Security.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

“Who died and made you king? This is a free country! I’ll do what I damn well please!”

Bill Whittle discusses how the nanny state has taken away our ability to make that statement with authority.

He's well worth a read if you long for the time when self-appointed protectors of your well being were not so pervasive.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Obama is "articulate"and can't sell watermelons

I'm not a public figure, nor a newscaster of note, but I can't imagine saying anything this stupid:

And Dan Rather is supposed to be some kind of enlightened elitist liberal?

Friday, March 5, 2010

Pres. Obama: This is just the foundation

From the Puffington Host:

Obama argued to the group of progressive members that his health care reform bill should be looked at as the foundation of reform, that can be built on in the future. He asked them to help gather votes for the final health care battle and promised that as soon as the bill was signed into law, he'd continue to push to make it stronger. But in a matter of weeks, he stressed, he could sign into law legislation that would lead to 31 million new people being insured, including the woman who wrote him.

This is what I, for one, have always thought was the point of healthcare reform. It is an attempt by the liberals progressives at a full-scale government takeover of the healthcare system.

Obama pointed Kucinich toward single-payer language that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was able to get into the bill. Kucinich fought for an amendment that would allow states to adopt single-payer systems without getting sued by insurance companies. Obama told Kucinich that Sanders's measure was similar but doesn't kick in for several years. "He definitely wrote it down," said one member of Kucinich, suggesting that he'd look into it.

Again, this is not surprising. Sanders is the only member of the Socialist party serving in the House, it makes sense for him to promote single-payer. Kucinich is a socialist, but doesn't have the guts to run as one.

This disclosure of motive by the President is exactly the reason that the reform bill should be opposed. It is incrementalism starting with a huge increment.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010


Today, March 2, is Texas Independence Day. On this date in 1836 the Texians met at Washington on the Brazos and declared their independence from Mexico. Thus establishing the Republic of Texas.

This was a desperate time for the Texians. The Alamo was under siege, and would fall on March the 6th with all the defenders being killed. The Runaway Scrape was in full bloom. With the Anglo settlers of Texas fleeing east to escape the oncoming Mexican army under General Santa Anna. Yet these men were bold enough to declare independence, even though it didn't appear very likely that they would be able to enforce the declaration.

Then, on April 21 Sam Houston took the Mexican force by surprise and took Santa Anna prisoner. As a term of the General's parole he ceded sovereignty to the Texans. Thus was confirmed the Republic of Texas, which survived until annexation into the United States of America in 1845.

This is a day of pride for those of us who are fortunate enough to call ourselves Texans.

Monday, March 1, 2010

Nothing to see here. Please move along.

Professor Jones of the Climate Research Institute:

And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

'I don't think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,' he said.

This is a rather disturbing comment. The scientific method dictates that data and models be reviewable. The whole idea is to have your findings tested, and either verified or refuted. But, there is nothing here that would indicate attempts to pervert peer review? Puhleaze!!!

We are supposed to reorganize the world economy based on these findings, but it is not "standard practice" to allow anyone to review the data or the computer models? Mind boggling hubris.

Read more: