Friday, January 31, 2014


Riddled With Errors: OBAMACARE
Implementation Challenges

Administration Issues 254 Regulatory Corrections  ... but wait that's not all, it (OBAMACARE) still has to pass the ultimate challenge 

The Affordable Care Act (OBAMACARE) has already imposed tremendous burdens on states and the private sector. The law will generate $32.3 billion in costs and more than 127 million paperwork burden hours, and those are just the burdens the administration reports publicly. There have obviously been notable problems with, the federal website for health care exchanges. These problems with implementation likely stem from early regulatory failures at the agency level. For example, the administration initially estimated it would take just 28 minutes to complete the online application. We now know that figure is nowhere close to reality.

New AAF research examined these regulatory failures more closely and found numerous technical and substantive errors with the implementation of the OBAMACARE. The administration has issued 104 final rules and then issued 254 subsequent corrections to these regulations. The table below highlights the current regulatory burdens of the law and the errors during implementation.

OBAMACARE Implementation

  • Total Costs $32.3 Billion
  • Paperwork Burden 127 Million Hours
  • “Red Tape” Loss 63,520 Employees
  • Rules 104
  • Total Corrections 254
As members of the public are well aware, OBAMACARE implementation is error-prone. The administration has published 104 prescriptive regulations and has issued 33 corrective documents (an error rate of 32 percent). In three instances, the administration was forced to publish corrections to earlier correcting documents. Those documents contained 254 separate corrections to previous regulations. By comparison, Dodd-Frank has an error rate of less than ten percent, despite its troubled implementation.

The number of pages issued under the OBAMACARE has generated considerable press, but it is perhaps more striking how many mistakes have been made during the process and how many pages the corrections consume. To date, the administration has published 136 pages of correcting documents to OBAMACARE regulations.

Not surprisingly, regulators issued 16 corrections to the health plan exchange final rule. One section noted, “However, one sentence implies that any licensure standards for Navigators would cause Navigators to be agents and brokers, which is inaccurate.” That final rule imposes $3.4 billion in costs and more than 1.1 million paperwork burden hours, but no corrections were made to the compliance cost section.

In one instance, the administration was forced to make 37 separate corrections to an OBAMACARE rule. Even more disturbing, the White House spent just five days reviewing the proposal, rushing it out, only to issue a full slate of corrections two months later.

One correction to the controversial menu labeling regulation listed 21 different amendments to the original proposal, including multiple section changes and alterations to initial capital costs. That proposal would cost restaurants more than $750 million, with 14.5 million paperwork burden hours. Regulators also expanded the proposal to include grocery stores, even though it appears that Congress never intended to sweep all food vendors under a new regulatory apparatus.

Finally, the administration made 24 corrections to its “Medical Loss Ratio” (MLR) requirements rule, which determines how much money insurance companies devote to patient coverage. Embarrassingly, the administration also had to correct that earlier correction. Other changes fixed text that was “technically inaccurate and [conflicted] with language elsewhere.” The final MLR rule imposed $228 million in costs and 1.2 million paperwork burden hours.


The enormous regulatory costs of the OBAMACARE, higher health care premiums, and the broken website are not surprising in light of the numerous errors the administration made with its own regulations. If the White House fails to issue correct exchange regulations and estimates it will only take a few minutes to complete the process, a failing website is merely the public display of these past regulatory failures. There’s a great deal of debate about the public policy benefits of the OBAMACARE, but missing deadlines and 254 errors during implementation isn’t good policy, or good government.

Thursday, January 30, 2014


Will Nancy Pelosi Be the Next to Retire?

With Rep. Henry Waxman's retirement announcement, many of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's top lieutenants are abandoning ship. 
Waxman the California Democrat  in a statement, was emphatic that he is not retiring because he thinks Democrats have no chance to retake the House.  Waxman is the second of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's closest allies to announce his retirement this year. Rep. George Miller, also from California, announced his planned departure earlier this month. He and Waxman were both members of the freshman class of 1975 and served 40 years in the House.
Waxman joins his California colleague, Rep. George Miller, and Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia as close Pelosi allies to retire after this Congress. And after last year's 2012 elections, Pelosi's leading in-house strategist Jen Crider left her office, later announcing she was working for Microsoft.
Their decisions are as strong a signal as any that veteran House Democrats hold little hope of taking the House in 2014, and they probably are pessimistic about their long-term prospects for a congressional majority. Miller and Waxman would be in line to chair influential committees if their party took control of the chamber. A third Democrat, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, wouldn't commit to running again in an interview this week. He would be in line to head up the Agriculture Committee in a Democratic majority.
Democrats need to net 17 seats to hand Pelosi the gavel, and analysts expect little movement, with President Obama's low approval ratings and redistricting reducing the number of competitive districts.
The decisions by Pelosi's California allies also raise the prospect that the minority leader herself could decide to retire—if not this year, then in the near future. (On previous occasions, Pelosi has said she's running for a 14th term.) She's played an active role in helping her party fundraise to take back the House, and she has shown no signs of slowing down. But California's filing deadline is more than a month away (March 7), giving her time to change course.

In a statement released this afternoon, Pelosi reiterated she is running for another term.

"I'm running. I've already started the paperwork process. My work is not finished," she said.

Waxman and Miller's retirements also underscore how outsized a role Pelosi has played in her home state's politics, to her benefit in Congress, but also to the national party's detriment.

Before the 2012 nonpartisan redistricting, most House seats in California were gerrymandered to the point where most members stayed in their seats indefinitely. (Before the last election, the average tenure among California members of Congress in 2012 was just under 16 years.) Many of the more senior members developed close ties with Pelosi, and sought to move up the congressional leadership chain instead of pursuing statewide political office.

Indeed, it's striking that the list of prospective 2016 candidates is filled with politicos from the other Democratic stronghold of New York—Hillary Clinton, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand—but there's no one from California on the list. Promising California Democratic members of Congress, such as House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra, preferred to move up the ranks than think bigger.

That's changed recently, thanks to a redistricting shake-up and Democratic efforts to recruit younger, more diverse talent to the state. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee made a concerted effort in 2012 to recruit a diverse crop of outsiders, bringing in newcomers such as emergency physician Raul Ruiz and Mark Takano, the first openly gay person of color to hold a seat in Congress.

California has changed dramatically since Waxman was first elected in 1974 as part of a class of unapologetically liberal Democrats. Pelosi reflected her delegation's outspoken liberalism to a T. But as a new generation of Democrats are getting elected around her, she could very well be California's next member of Congress to step aside.



‘THE RULES ARE THE RULES’: Government shuts down 11-year-old’s cupcake business ... 
The government has pulled the plug on an 11-year-old Illinois baker’s oven.
A day after a local newspaper ran a story about the young and ambitious Chloe Stirling, who operated a cupcake business out of her parents’ kitchen, the local health department came calling.
“They called and said they were shutting us down,” Heather Stirling, Chloe’s mother, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Officials told Stirling Chloe could continue selling cupcakes on the condition that the family “buy a bakery or build her a kitchen separate from the one we have.”

“Obviously, we can’t do that,” Heather Stirling told reporters. “We’ve already given her a little refrigerator to keep her things in, and her grandparents bought her a stand mixer.”

The elder Stirling said that she was willing to get her daughter any necessary licenses or permits to operate a business, but could not meet the health department’s other demands.

“But a separate kitchen? Who can do that?” asked an astonished Stirling.

When reporters approached Amy Yeager, a health department spokeswoman, about the county’s decision to shut down Chloe’s business, she said that she was doing it for the sake of the public.

“The rules are the rules. It’s for the protection of the public health,” Yeager said, according to the Post-Dispatch. “The guidelines apply to everyone.”

“People will react how they choose to react,” she added. “But it is our job.”

Chloe originally started selling the frosted cakes under the name “Hey, Cupcake” to save up for a car when she turns sixteen.

And before the government took her oven mitts, the sixth grader charged $10 for a dozen cupcakes and $2 for each specialty cupcake.

However, she was also known to donate her time and sprinkles to charity.
When a boy in her school was diagnosed with cancer in 2012, she donated cupcakes to helpraise money for his treatment. Adding a personal touch, she made them orange and blue because he “was a really big Cubs fan.”
Her largest order ever, amounting to 220 cupcakes, was also for a cancer fundraiser.


State of the Union draws 33.3 million viewers, lowest since 2000
President Obama's 2014 State of the Union address drew an average of 33.3 million viewers Tuesday night, according to Nielsen.

Fox News Dominates Cable Ratings for State of the Union Address
Fox News flexed its muscles as the most popular cable news outlet Tuesday night, as its coverage of the State of the Union address out-drew the combined tune-in of rivals CNN and MSNBC. It was also the only one to be up vs. last year’s speech.

Overall, meanwhile, Nielsen estimates that an average audience of 33.3 million watched the SOTU on 14 broadcast and cable stations, including a tape-delayed airing on Univision. This is down 12% from last year’s 37.8 million and the smallest since President Clinton’s last address, in 2000 (31.5 million).

DEMO - 25 - 54 AGE RANGE
According to Nielsen estimates for roughly 9:14-10:20 p.m. ET, Fox News Channel averaged 4,718,853 viewers — more than double MSNBC (2,292,169) and CNN (2,081,431). FNC held a sizable advantage in the key news demo of adults 25-54 as well (1,197,554), with CNN ranking second by this measure (762,450) and MSNBC third (752,054).

From 9 to 11 p.m., FNC, whose coverage was anchored by Bret Baier, averaged 4.51 million viewers, followed by 2.17 million for MSNBC and 1.88 million for CNN.

It was a much tighter race a year ago, with Fox News only narrowly leading CNN in total viewers and finishing third in adults 25-54. (CNN’s performance a year ago may have been boosted by its breaking news coverage reporting on the manhunt of Christopher Dorner in the California mountains before and after the president’s speech.)

Compared to the 2013 State of the Union address, held in February, Fox News was up 28% in total viewers (from 3.68 million) and 25% in adults 25-54 (from 956,000), while CNN was down more than 40% in both categories and MSNBC was off by more than 20 in both.

This was CNN’s least-watched SOTU since 2005 in both total viewers and the 25-54 demo, and it was MSNBC’s lowest since 2008.

On the broadcast side, CBS led in average audience for the SOTU address, while NBC was tops in key demos. For the post-address analysis, NBC led with 6.702 million viewers (and a 2.1/5 in adults 25-54) while CBS drew 6.558 million (and a 1.7/4 in 25-54) and ABC bagged 5.565 million (and a 1.7/4 in 25-54).

Wednesday, January 29, 2014


"In the beginning of a change, the PATRIOT is a scarce man, and brave and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it cost nothing to be a PATRIOT."
--Mark Twain 1904

The below summary of Barack and Michelle Obama’s 5 year reign in the White House is by far the best I've ever read as it squarely hits the nail on the head. And it took a black reporter writing it to make it as effective as it is. A white man’s account would be instantly criticized by the liberal media as pure racism. But, how can anyone scream Racist when an exacting description of the Obama’s is penned by a well known journalist of color?


(Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.)

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's. Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."

The truth is I do not like the Obama’s, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obama’s. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.

I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President, and a love of our country and her citizens, from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish.

His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that Mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do that.

I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.

And what the two of them have shared has been proven to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address.

He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.

His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.

I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader.

He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014


Please go all the way down the list for the "bottom line". . .
From the World Health Organization
The latest Murder Statistics for the world:
Murders per 100,000 citizens per year.
Honduras 91.6 (WOW!!) 
El Salvador 69.2
Cote d'lvoire 56.9
Jamaica 52.2
Venezuela 45.1
Belize 41.4
US Virgin Islands 39.2
Guatemala 38.5
Saint Kitts and Nevis 38.2
Zambia 38.0
Uganda 36.3
Malawi 36.0
Lesotho 35.2
Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
Colombia 33.4
South Africa 31.8
Congo 30.8
Central African Republic 29.3
Bahamas 27.4
Puerto Rico 26.2
Saint Lucia 25.2
Dominican Republic 25.0
Tanzania 24.5
Sudan 24.2
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
Ethiopia 22.5
Guinea 22.5
Dominica 22.1
Burundi 21.7
Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
Panama 21.6
Brazil 21.0
Equatorial Guinea 20.7
Guinea-Bissau 20.2
Kenya 20.1
Kyrgyzstan 20.1
Cameroon 19.7
Montserrat 19.7
Greenland 19.2
Angola 19.0
Guyana 18.6
Burkina Faso 18.0
Eritrea 17.8
Namibia 17.2
Rwanda 17.1
Mexico 16.9
Chad 15.8
Ghana 15.7
Ecuador 15.2
North Korea 15.2
Benin 15.1
Sierra Leone 14.9
Mauritania 14.7
Botswana 14.5
Zimbabwe 14.3
Gabon 13.8
Nicaragua 13.6
French Guiana 13.3
Papua New Guinea 13.0
Swaziland 12.9
Bermuda 12.3
Comoros 12.2
Nigeria 12.2
Cape Verde 11.6
Grenada 11.5
Paraguay 11.5
Barbados 11.3
Togo 10.9
Gambia 10.8
Peru 10.8
Myanmar 10.2
Russia 10.2
Liberia 10.1
Costa Rica 10.0
Nauru 9.8
Bolivia 8.9
Mozambique 8.8
Kazakhstan 8.8
Senegal 8.7
Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
Mongolia 8.7
British Virgin Islands 8.6
Cayman Islands 8.4
Seychelles 8.3
Madagascar 8.1
Indonesia 8.1
Mali 8.0
Pakistan 7.8
Moldova 7.5
Kiribati 7.3
Guadeloupe 7.0
Haiti 6.9
Timor-Leste 6.9
Anguilla 6.8
Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
Lithuania 6.6
Uruguay 5.9
Philippines 5.4
Ukraine 5.2
Estonia 5.2
Cuba 5.0
Belarus 4.9
Thailand 4.8
Suriname 4.6
Laos 4.6
Georgia 4.3
Martinique 4.2
And ... The United States 4.2 !!!!!!!!!!!!

ALL (109) of the countries above America have 100% gun bans.

It might be of interest to note that SWITZERLAND is not shown on this list because it has
However, SWITZERLAND'S law requires that EVERYONE:
1. Own a gun.
2. Maintain Marksman qualifications .... regularly.
Didja learn anything from this??
I think the message is - loud and clear - that gun bans and restrictions
DO NOT work!

Monday, January 27, 2014


Interviewing Andy Schlafly About His Court Case That Could Kill Obamacare

January 27, 2014

Last week, I got together with Andy Schlafly to discuss a case he’s brought against Obamacare and how it could end up killing the law. What follows is a slightly edited transcript of our conversation.

Okay, Andy, if you could first of all, for people who aren’t familiar with your case, give us a wrap-up of what you’re doing with your case.

We knew this case would be going to the Appellate Court. The good news is that the District Court resolved all procedural issues in our favor. So the District Court rejected all of the objections by the government, where the government claims that we did not have standing somehow. This is what the government has been doing in a lot of the cases and they’ve been succeeding in many courts in avoiding judicial resolution of the merits of Obamacare. So many of the cases we see around the country, the merits of Obamacare are never reached, but it is being reached in this case.

Now, explain to people who aren’t familiar with your case the argument you’re making to the court.

The argument is simply this: Obamacare was passed in violation of Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution which requires that revenue-raising measures originate only in the House of Representatives, not in the U.S. Senate. Well, Obamacare is a revenue-raising measure that originated in the U.S. Senate and therefore it’s in violation of Article 1, Section 7 which is known as the Origination Clause; therefore, it’s unconstitutional.
... And there are good reasons for this. It’s not just simply a technicality. The House of Representatives is considered to be more responsive to the people. They’re elected every two years. Everybody in the House is up every two years and because of that, they’re closer to the people and they’re more accountable for revenue-raising measures — and that’s why only they are allowed to introduce revenue-raising measures so that there is someone there who’s accountable in the next election of the people for hitting them in the pocketbook. That did not happen with Obamacare though.

Now there have been some other cases that have gone through, but yours may have a better shot because you’re going to the 5th Circuit. Can you tell people why that is?

The 5th Circuit has more independence and it’s more conservative than the other Circuits. This is the only Circuit that has chastised Obama for his arrogant comments about Obamacare. There was a time when Obama even suggested the courts did not have the power to invalidate Obamacare and only the 5th Circuit criticized him for that. Only the 5th Circuit required the Obama Administration to explain itself and to admit that courts do have the power and the responsibility to invalidate laws that violate the United States Constitution.

So the 5th Circuit is a special Circuit. It has that history and, of course, it’s in Texas. Texas is willing to stand up to Washington, D.C. There have been close to 20 lawsuits brought by the state of Texas against the Obama Administration. So Texas has always been a leader in standing up against unconstitutional things that are done in D.C. So that’s why this is a superb venue to litigate the Constitution validity of Obamacare and yet no one else has done it before.

This is the first case that puts Obamacare before the 5th Circuit.

Now if you win this case at the 5th Circuit, what happens? It just goes to the Supreme Court or as a practical matter, does anything happen?

Sure, if we were to win this before the 5th Circuit, there would be tremendous fallout from that. Immediately people would recognize that Obamacare is unconstitutional and it’s on shaky footing as it is. A ruling against Obamacare by the 5th Circuit would probably be the last word on Obamacare because then it would collapse, most likely collapse.

The 5th Circuit could do this in any of a variety of ways. I mean they could use an alternative basis for invalidating Obamacare. There are only five votes on the U.S. Supreme Court for upholding Obamacare on very narrow grounds and it seems unlikely that that five vote coalition would hold together on every argument that we’ve got against Obamacare. In fact, that five vote majority was careful in saying that they’re not addressing other possible defects in Obamacare. They’re simply upholding it against the challenge that was brought in that case which was a very narrow challenge based on the Commerce Clause.

The court carefully said they’re not saying that Obamacare is constitutional on every other possible challenge.

Now, win or lose, you’re going to take it to the Supreme Court, right?

If we win, we don’t have to take it to the Supreme Court. That’s the job of the Obama Administration. They can try to take it to the Supreme Court, try to get their attention, try to get them to step in and as we’ve seen, the Supreme Court is not always anxious to jump in to correct in the view of something a Circuit did. The Supreme Court only takes about 75 cases a year and frequently there have been very controversial decisions by Appellate Courts that the Supreme Court has declined to get involved in. So if the 5th Circuit struck down Obamacare, it’s unclear how quickly or if the Supreme Court would get involved at all.

So this case could be the end of Obamacare. If you win this one in front of a court that may be inclined your way, that could be the end of it, right?


And last question: when does this go in front of the court?

It’s going to move quickly now; briefing it should be finished by the end of February. We expect a speedy oral argument and resolution now that we’re up on appeal and it’s been documented on appeal; the number is 20039 if you want to include that, before the 5th Circuit. The court moves quickly now.

Well, Andy, good luck and Godspeed. Thank you so much for doing this.

Also see,

An Interview With Andy Schlafly: Can He Get Obamacare Overturned In The Supreme Court? (May 20, 2013)

Saturday, January 25, 2014


Obamacare At ‘Significant’ Risk of ‘Death Spiral,’ Economist Warns
Dr. John Goodman, president and CEO, National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)

( – Economist John Goodman, who warned last October that Obamacare could plunge into a “death spiral” if not enough young, healthy people signed up for coverage, says that danger is now “significant” following news that the Obama administration failed to hit its young adult enrollment target.

“I think there is a significant problem here,” Goodman, president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), told “I think the insurers are worried. I think the administration is worried.

“Remember, everybody is facing the wrong price. And sick people are facing a price that’s well below the cost of their care. Young healthy people are being overcharged. And so they need lots of young healthy people to join so they can get the money to pay the bills for the sick people. And the younger people just aren’t buying it.

“Part of the problem, I think, is that it’s been so difficult for people to sign up, and so the only ones who’ve persevered – sometimes trying a hundred times – are people who really have serious health problems.

A death spiral - the insurance pool equivalent of bankruptcy - occurs when too many older and sicker people sign up for insurance relative to the number of younger, healthier people, Goodman explained, forcing everybody’s premiums up. But as premiums rise, even less young people sign up for coverage.

“That’s what we’re seeing so far,” Goodman told “Over half of all the people who enrolled are above the age of 45, and older people are more expensive [to insure]. We’re also seeing 20 percent of the people who are enrolling are going for the gold or platinum plans. Those people tend to be sick. They’re buying the more comprehensive plans because they plan to use a lot of health care.”

According to figures released this week by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, only 24 percent of the 2.2 million people who have already signed up for Obamacare are between the ages of 18 and 34, just a little more than half of the 40 percent the administration admitted it needed to keep premiums affordable.

When asked Goodman how Americans would know if the system was crashing, he replied:
“Well, there won’t be any neon signs that say ‘Death Spiral Underway,’ but what you’ll see is premiums keep rising, and if premiums keep rising, then fewer healthy people will buy in and we may get to a point where you need government subsidies to prop the whole thing up. By that I mean government subsidies to the insurance companies.” asked Goodman whether he agreed with Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein, who argues that “the risk of a ‘death spiral’ is over.” He replied:

“Well, no, and it turns out that 80 percent of all the people who signed up so far are getting subsidies. Well, they need lots of people who have higher incomes and who aren’t going to get subsidies. And if those people are unwilling to pay the high premiums that are being charged, then they’re in trouble. …Everybody is worried, and no one’s keeping the fact that they’re worried a secret,” Goodman added.

Obamacare’s “perverse incentives” will just encourage more young people to “game the system and wait until they get sick before they enroll,” he said, while insurance companies “try to avoid the sick” to protect their bottom lines. But that will be increasingly hard to do as tens of thousands of government retirees are dumped into the exchanges.

“Over the next three months, the federal government will end its risk pool and all the state governments will end theirs, and then all those people who are high-cost enrollees, they will go into the exchanges. And then there are cities and towns like Detroit, that have made promises of post-retirement care and they’re not funded, and so Detroit’s planning on sending all of its retirees to the exchange, and lots of other cities will do the same thing….”
“And then the Obama administration’s apparently going to allow hospitals and AIDS clinics to enroll people on the spot,” Goodman told “So if a hospital had a patient who’s having heart surgery, for example, that hospital is going to be able to get him enrolled in a private plan in the exchange to shift the cost over to that insurer. Apparently the hospital can actually pay the premium for the individual.

“You see, the premium is small compared to that hospital bill. So if we’re talking about a $50,000 hospital bill, they can afford to pay a $10,000 premium and come out ahead. So insurers are sort of quite vulnerable at the moment.”

However, if Obamacare does go belly up, there will be no easy way to replace it, Goodman warned. “We have destroyed the individual market, and it’s going to be very, very hard to move from where we are now to a real market, where people face real prices, which is what I think we have to do,” he said.
“Republicans who say we’re just going to abolish Obamacare need to be aware of the fact that they can’t just go back to the individual market, because it’s being destroyed. We need to think carefully about how we can get out of the mess we’re in, [because] just repealing the legislation isn’t going to be enough.”

Friday, January 24, 2014



If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

... Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals. 
The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.


Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), speaking at the 40th annual March for Life on the National Mall on Wednesday, said more Americans were killed through abortion than died in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam and Gulf War combined.
“Think about it – in 2008, more children from abortion than Americans died in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korean, Vietnam and Gulf War combined. This must stop!” said Hartzler, one of several House members who attended the pro-life rally, marking the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
In 2008, there were 825,564 abortions reported to the Centers for Disease Control.
AbstractProblem/Condition: Since 1969, CDC has conducted abortion surveillance to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions in the United States.Reporting Period Covered: 1999--2008.Description of System: Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). This information is provided voluntarily. For 2008, data were received from 49 reporting areas. For the purpose of trend analysis, data were evaluated from the 45 areas that reported data every year during 1999--2008. Abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) were calculated using census and natality data, respectively.Results: A total of 825,564 abortions were reported to CDC for 2008. Of these, 808,528 abortions (97.9% of the total) were from the 45 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1999--2008. Among these same 45 reporting areas, the abortion rate for 2008 was 16.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years, and the abortion ratio was 234 abortions per 1,000 live births. Compared with 2007, the total number and rate of reported abortions for these 45 reporting areas essentially were unchanged, although the abortion ratio was 1% higher. Reported abortion numbers, rates, and ratios remained 3%, 4%, and 10% lower, respectively, in 2008 than they had been in 1999.Women aged 20--29 years accounted for 57.1% of all abortions reported in 2008 and for the majority of abortions during the entire period of analysis (1999--2008). In 2008, women aged 20--29 years also had the highest abortion rates (29.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20--24 years and 21.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 25--29 years). Adolescents aged 15--19 years accounted for 16.2% of all abortions in 2008 and had an abortion rate of 14.3 abortions per 1,000 adolescents aged 15--19 years; women aged ≥35 years accounted for a smaller percentage (11.9%) of abortions and had lower abortion rates (7.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 35--39 years and 2.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged ≥40 years). Throughout the period of analysis, abortion rates decreased among adolescents aged ≤19 years, whereas they increased among women aged ≥35 years. Among women aged 20--24 years abortion rates decreased during 1999--2003 and then leveled off during 2004--2008.

According to a Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, compiled by sources at the Department of Defense and updated in 2005, there were 4,435 U.S. military personnel killed in the Revolutionary War, 116,516 in World War I, 405,399 in World War II, 36,574 in the Korean War, 58,209 in Vietnam, and 382 in the Persian Gulf War. That’s a total of 621,515 deaths from all seven wars combined.

“All babies are wanted. Some pregnancies are unexpected, but no baby is unwanted,” 
a message from your baby!
“Women who choose life for their baby and make an adoption plan for their child should be championed and supported. Not only do these courageous birth mothers enable an innocent baby to live, they turn an empty house into a home, and a household into a family. 

“It’s a gift, we will always be eternally grateful for, and one of which we can never repay,” ...