Monday, May 2, 2016

Obamacare disaster will be Obama’s enduring domestic legacy



Historian David Maraniss notes, in Sunday’s Post, that President Obama came to office with the goal of changing “the trajectory of America” and leaving “a legacy as a president of consequence, the liberal counter to [Ronald] Reagan.”
On the foreign-policy front, he is the anti-Reagan for certain. Reagan defeated Soviet communism and left us a safer world; Obama presided over the rise and metastasis of the Islamic State and left us a far more dangerous one.
Domestically, Ronald Reagan told the American people: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’ ” Obama wanted to convince Americans that they were not terrifying. And the way he was going to do it was through the only great liberal legislative achievement of his presidency: Obamacare.
He failed. Even before he leaves office, Obamacare has begun unraveling.
The law was passed over the objections of a majority of Americans, it is still opposed by a majority of Americans — and their opposition has been vindicated. Last week,UnitedHealth Group announced that, after estimated losses of more than $1 billion for 2015 and 2016 under Obamacare, the company was pulling out of most of its ill-fated exchanges.

Remember when HealthCare.gov didn’t work? So does Obama

Play Video2:04
Speaking during an appearance at SXSW, President Obama discussed the many problems that occurred during the rollout of the Affordable Care Act’s website, HealthCare.gov. (Reuters)
In fact, commercial insurers across the country are hemorrhaging money on Obamacare at alarming rates. Health Care Service Corp. (which owns Blue Cross and Blue Shield affiliates in Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas) has lost “well north of $2 billion” in its first two years — twice as much as UnitedHealth. Highmark, the nation’s fourth-largest Blue Cross plan, lost nearly $600 million in 2015. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina has projected it will lose more than $400 million in the first two years, and the company has said it may leave the exchanges entirely next year.
The president promised these insurers taxpayer bailouts if they lost money, but Congress in its wisdom passed legislation barring the use of taxpayer dollars to prop up the insurers. Without the bailouts, commercial insurers are being forced to eat their losses — while more than half of the Obamacare nonprofit insurance cooperatives created under the law failed.
So what happens now? Because commercial insurers are not going to keep bleeding cash to prop up Obamacare, they have three choices: 1) scale back coverage, 2) raise prices or 3) get out of the exchanges entirely. More and more are going to choose option 3.
Does this mean that Obamacare is finally entering its “death spiral”? Not exactly. As my American Enterprise Institute colleague Scott Gottlieb explains, while commercial insurers are starting to leave Obamacare, they are being replaced by Medicaid health maintenance organizations (HMOs) offering skimpy plans that mirror what they offer in Medicaid — our nation’s emergency health insurance program for the poorest of the poor.
This is a catastrophe for people stuck in Obamacare. According to a 2014 McKinsey survey, about three-quarters of those in the exchanges were previously insured on commercial plans, either through their employers or the individual market. They were doing fine without taxpayer-subsidized insurance but were pushed into Obamacare. They now face rising premiums and smaller provider networks — and as commercial insurers flee, they will increasingly be stuck in horrible, Medicaid-style plans.
This is not what the president promised when he sold Obamacare to the American people.
The president promised Obamacare would provide “more choice, more competition, lower costs.” Instead, Americans have less choice, less competition and higher costs. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, if UnitedHealth “were to leave the exchange market overall, 1.8 million Marketplace enrollees would be left with two insurers, and another 1.1 million would be left with one insurer.” As more commercial insurers do the same, there will be even less competition — and higher premiums.
The president promised “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” But commercial insurers who stay in Obamacare are responding to massive losses by narrowing provider networks, with fewer doctors and hospitals to choose from. And those that quit are being replaced by Medicaid HMOs with even less doctor choice.
The president promised Obamacare would “lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.” But insurers are raising premiums instead to cover the massive losses, and even Marilyn Tavenner — the former Obama administration official who ran Obamacare — has predicted premiums will rise even further next year.
As they do, young, healthy individuals will be priced out of the exchanges — and the only people who will be able to afford Obamacare will be high-risk patients who qualify for federal subsidies. Without enough healthy people in the exchanges to pay for the sick ones, taxpayers will be stuck with more and more of the costs over time — a situation that is unsustainable in the long run.
With Obamacare, Obama wanted to restore America’s faith in big government. Instead, the opposite has happened. Today, 69 percent of Americans say big government is “the biggest threat to the country in the future” (ahead of big business or big labor). That figure, which is slightly down from 72 percent in 2013, is higher under Obama than it has been since Gallup began asking the question about 50 years ago. Obamacare has done more to discredit big government than 1,000 Reagan speeches ever did.
That, in the end, will be Obama’s enduring domestic legacy.

CRUZ’S TAKE ON HILLARY’S WAR ROOM [UPDATED BY JOHN]


This is an excellent, artful, humorous, and well-produced Cruz campaign video that skewers Trump and Hillary at the same time. I wonder if Zucker and Abrahams are behind this:
UPDATE: Actually, this video was produced by our friends at Madison McQueen, who, I believe, have done all of the Cruz campaign’s media. They say that they are happy to be confused with Zucker and Abrahams.

Kansas Required Work for Food Stamps. Here’s What Happened


U.S. Department of Agriculture $5 food stamps. (Photo: Richard B. Levine/Newscom)


Abraham Lincoln once said
, “No country can sustain, in idleness, more than a small percentage of its numbers. The great majority must labor at something productive.”
Over the past several years, the number of Americans on food stamps has soared. In particular, since 2009, the number of “able-bodied-adults” without dependents receiving food stamps more than doubled nationally. Part of this increase is due to a federal rule that allowed states to waive food stamps’ modest work requirement. However, states such as Kansas and Maine chose to reinstate work requirements. Comparing and contrasting the two approaches provides powerful new evidence about the effectiveness of work.
According to a report from the Foundation for Government Accountability, before Kansas instituted a work requirement, 93 percent of food stamp recipients were in poverty, with 84 percent in severe poverty. Few of the food stamp recipients claimed any income. Only 21 percent were working at all, and two-fifths of those working were working fewer than 20 hours per week.
Once work requirements were established, thousands of food stamp recipients moved into the workforce, promoting income gains and a decrease in poverty. Forty percent of the individuals who left the food stamp ranks found employment within three months, and about 60 percent found employment within a year. They saw an average income increase of 127 percent. Half of those who left the rolls and are working have earnings above the poverty level. Even many of those who stayed on food stamps saw their income increase significantly.
Work programs provide opportunities such as job training and employment search services. For example, in Kansas, workfare helped one man, who was unemployed for four years and on food stamps, find employment in the publishing industry where he now earns $45,000 annually. Another Kansan who was also previously unemployed and dependent on food stamps for over three years, now has an annual income of $34,000.
Furthermore, with the implementation of the work requirement in Kansas, the caseload dropped by 75 percent. Previously, Kansas was spending $5.5 million per month on food stamp benefits for able-bodied adults; it now spends $1.2 million.
Maine is another powerful example in favor of work over dependency. Similarly to Kansas, Maine saw a major decline in its caseload after instituting a work requirement. Within the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its caseload of able-bodied adults receiving food stamps plunged by 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.
Providing assistance to help those in need does not have to be a one-way handout. According to a Heritage Foundation survey, Americans overwhelmingly agree that able-bodied adults receiving welfare should work. However, very few of the federal government’s 80 means-tested welfare programs require recipients to work for benefits.
One of the best ways to ensure that welfare does not become a trap is to initiate reform based on the principles of work and personal responsibility. As the examples of Kansas and Maine show, good public policy can help encourage individuals towards self-sufficiency and better lives.

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and the cultural evisceration of the U.S. Navy.

BARBARIANS INSIDE THE GATES 

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and the cultural evisceration of the U.S. Navy.

   
President Obama came into office in 2009 promising "transformation" and he has delivered on that promise. Over the past 7 1/2 years we've witnessed trillion dollar deficits and the establishment of a highly politicized and inexorably failing health care system ("Obamacare"); the "weaponization" of government agencies (think, IRS, EPA, DOJ) to intimidate and attack his political opponents; the calculated and feckless decline of American power and influence throughout the world; relentless redistributionist policies; and the president's support (often with a wink and a nod) of thuggish (and sometimes violent) radical groups like "Occupy Wall Street" and "Black Lives Matter." As a result, America is "on edge" -- socially, racially, economically -- as it hasn't been for decades. Indeed, many have reached the sobering insight that America's best days may now be behind her.
Overlooked by most in Obama's relentless efforts to "remake" America has been his ongoing and dangerous transformation of our military. Here I am not going address the dozens of weapon systems cut, or the tens of thousands of troops given their "pink slips." What I want to speak to is his administration's systematic destruction of the 200+ year-old culture of the U.S. military. This "multicultural makeover," happening right before our eyes, threatens to undermine the very fabric of our armed forces. The forced acceptance of open homosexuality and the burgeoning hostility toward Christianity; the gratuitous degradation of our troops (e.g., forcing ROTC cadets to march in red high heels to experience what it's like to be a woman; making male soldiers wear simulated lactation devices, or lecturing them on "white privilege," dare I go on?); the "full-court press" to make our forces more diverse, most alarmingly by opening up combat positions (even special forces) to female soldiers; and the relentless purging from the ranks of dozens of fine general officers whose only "offense" was their failure to "get with the program" -- all of this, like some nightmarish "progressive" Blitzkrieg, is now wreaking havoc with our reluctant service members, the objective being that of a complete and irreversible cultural transformation. What's next, I wonder -- weaponized hair and nail salons on wheels?  
One of those leading the charge in the radical mutation of our military culture is Secretary of the Navy, RayMabus. The former Democratic governor of Mississippi has enthusiastically spearheaded our president's plan to weaken -- and, ultimately, tear asunder -- the bonds of brotherhood that have served our nation so well from Valley Forge to Iwo Jima and Fallujah. To the Bolsheviks now running the show in Washington, D.C., the U.S. military signified the final frontier -- the last bastion of (white, heterosexual) alpha male institutional domination that they still needed to extirpate "root and branch" to complete their bewilderingly successful 40-50 year march through our cultural institutions. And Ray Mabus is the president's point man. Or so it seems. His most damaging contribution to the deep and disturbing social changes rocking our military has been his full-throated support for the integration of women into all -- and I mean all -- combat positions in the U.S. Marine Corps. Infantry, armor, artillery, recon, special forces -- women are now to serve in all these combat branches and not simply in token numbers. This despite the fact that, according to surveys of military women, over 90% have absolutely no desire to serve in combat positions. Yet this is of no consequence to the small cabal of radical feminists and their enablers -- they are in control and they will do just what they want to do, for whatever nefarious purpose. In all honesty, do you think that Ray Mabusand his ilk believe a 5'4" female, weighing 110 pounds, will be able to meet the highly rigorous requirements of combat that today is the sole domain of much larger, much stronger men? Has anyone even consideredthe hygienic effects of having women serve in the field for weeks on end? And if anyone wants to further explore the history of mixed-gender combat units, simply look at the Israeli example. A catastrophe it was.
When the Marine Corps leadership produced a study making unequivocally clear that all-male units performed significantly better than mixed-gender units, Mabus would have none of it. He "savaged officials who ran the study, accusing them of bias and not wanting women to succeed." (Source: Jonah Bennett, "Navy Secretary Ray Mabus to Step Down," 3 March 2016.)
A paragon of political correctness -- that evil, sinister twin of Marxist multiculturalism -- Mabus is also supported the elimination of that loathsome word "man" from all job titles in the U.S. Navy. There are 21 job titles in the Navy which include the word "man" (e.g., "fireman"), and Navy officials were to report to Mabusby 1 April on what was to be done to efface such "sexist" titles from the vernacular of the Navy. Wonder howthat went.
Navy recruiters will now be forced to push diversity at all costs -- women and minorities are in, white males are out, regardless of the impact such a policy may have on morale and mission effectiveness. Yet the impact on morale, on fighting qualities, is of little concern to Mabus and his merry band of Bolsheviks, as they turn our armed forces into a lunatic laboratory for the New Marxism -- an experiment which may well wreck the Marine Corps (and other service branches) as currently configured, as the final white alpha-male bastion in American society is expunged once and for all. And all in the name of "diversity" -- diversity ueber alles.
Not too very long ago, the thought of handing machine guns or grenades to young women and telling them to fight for us would have been met with derision -- horror even; indeed, no sentient human being would have entertained such a barbaric thought. Would America have been a greater, a more just nation had several hundred young women -- some no doubt pregnant -- been among the 1500 American G.I.'s who died on Omaha Beach on 6 June 1944? And, today, any female Marines captured by Islamic State would be systematically tortured, raped and killed; that would be the inevitable result of the gender policies promoted by preternatural fools such as Ray Mabus.
In a larger sense, the cultural evisceration of our military on the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, whatever you want to call it, should surprise no one. At its very core, multiculturalism seeks to destroy -- to crush all that is Good, Decent, Moral and Just in our fading Judeo-Christian society. As I said, this sinister process has been underway for decades, yet only now, under Barack Obama, have the Bolsheviks been let loose on our armed forces. Sadly, our military brass have, for the most part, simply stood by and watched as Mabusand his ilk wielded their wrecking balls. I cannot recall the case of a single general who, in an act of moral courage, resigned from the service in protest. Yet there is a fundamental difference between physical and moral courage, is there not?
In recent days, Russian fighter-bombers have done barrel rolls within ca. 30 feet of our planes and ships inside international waters. Such reckless behavior (no doubt part of Putin's plan to ratchet up the level of intimidation) leaves little to no room for error and focuses one's mind on the possibility of a tragic international incident, even war. But as the Army chief-of-staff testified recently before the Senate Armed Services Committee, if it ever came to war with Putin's Russia, we'd most likely get the short end of the stick.
Such is the state of America's armed forces under Barack Obama and Ray Mabus.

DEAR DIRECTOR COMEY

H.A. Goodman is an immoderate supporter of Bernie Sanders for president. He is also a Huffington Post blogger. In his most recent column, republished at Salon, Goodman returns to the matter of Hillary Clinton’s private email set-up to conduct official business as Secretary of State. Goodman frames the column as an open letter to FBI Director James Comey. Apart from the expressions of support for Sanders, I would change only one word (“could face indictment” should read “should face indictment”). Here is the heart of Goodman’s column:
Since your investigation has taken so long, many people believe that nothing has been found, or simply that Clinton is too powerful to face any serious repercussions. Any attempt to warn people that Hillary Clinton could realistically face criminal indictments is either viewed as a Republican scare tactic, or lunacy. Even many Bernie Sanders supporters, a group that would benefit the most from the FBI recommending indictment of Clinton, feel it’s either disloyal, or pointless to bring up the email controversy. The massive group think within the Democratic Party, fostered by years of circumventing political scandals, has literally altered the mindset of normally rational individuals, and voters.
To a great many people, there is simply nothing Hillary Clinton can do wrong; even FBI investigations are merged with Republican Benghazi hearings.
Ultimately, your hard work, and your investigation into Clinton’s email server and correspondence, is viewed as a big, fat “nothingb[u]rger.” As Esquire’s Charles Pierce writes, “The great Hillary email nothingburger is still on the grill, and it’s certainly overcooked.” Sadly, the FBI has become part of a satirical narrative centered upon Clinton being the victim of never-ending Republican attacks.
It’s important for everyone at the FBI to know that your investigation, and I say this with all due respect, is viewed as a source of amusement for many writers, pundits, and observers loyal to Clinton. The 22 Top Secret emails on a private server (something that should disqualify anyone running for president) are either completely ignored by party faithful, or rationalized by twisted logic. Nothing is taken seriously anymore; everything is viewed through the belief that Republicans are worse, therefore Clinton’s indiscretions are meaningless.
This should tell you something about the state of our Republic. This should also tell you something about the rule of law in our country. If anyone else in the U.S. government owned a private server storing Top Secret intelligence, for the sake of “convenience,” they’d be in jail. Lt. General Michael Flynn made that case on CNN with Jake Tapper.
The mere notion that Hillary Clinton could face criminal indictments is simply unrealistic to many voters, and I explain here what the Clinton campaign and supporters think of you and your organization. There used to be a time in U.S. history when FBI investigations were bad for campaigns; now it’s not even a speed bump for the former Secretary of State.
While I’ve stated on this CNN International appearance that Clinton could face indictment, and in a CNN New Day appearance that Clinton manages to continually circumvent scandal, only the FBI can resolve this grandiose issue.
Our country is getting closer to electing a person, under FBI investigation for potential misconduct pertaining to classified documents, that will have complete access to every single American intelligence agency.
When Univision’s Jorge Ramos asked Clinton “If you get indicted, will you drop out?” the former Secretary of State’s answer spoke volumes. She responded, “Oh, for goodness — that’s not going to happen.” The audience then cheered, for a response that no other American citizen would give to a question regarding possible DOJ indictment.
I’m not saying that people should fear the FBI. I’m saying people should respect the FBI. At this point, Bernie Sanders is the only Democratic candidate not linked to an FBI investigation, yet Clinton is leading in delegates. This dynamic would never take place in any other leading democracy. If David Cameron had been investigated by MI5, rest assured the British would never have allowed him to become leader of his political party, and eventually Prime Minister.
No doubt, you must perform your investigation without political pressure, but the reality is that millions of Bernie Sanders supporters are awaiting your verdict. Millions of independent voters, and millions of Democrats who aren’t voting for Clinton, need to hear your verdict. Needless to say, the Republicans are waiting as well.
The entire nation is waiting for you to disclose the details of your year-long email investigation.
Whole thing (with links) here.

Your ♡bamaCare!!! Fail of the Day

He did not see this coming. (Christian Charisius/dpa via AP)
Motley Fool's Sean Williams sums up ♡bamaCare!!!'s woes, and wonders if the Totally Settled Law of the Land™'s insurance exchanges can avoid a death spiral:
Health insurers were counting on strong enrollment figures, as the ACA limits their margins and thus their profitability. If insurers fail to spend at least 80% of collected premiums on medical care for their members, they'll be required to issue refunds to members. Likewise, if they're too profitable, they're to share a percentage of their profits with struggling insurers on Obamacare exchanges to help prop them up. Original estimates from the Congressional Budget Office suggested that more than 20 million people would be enrolled by 2016. Unfortunately for insurers, the CBO overestimated how many people would drop out of their employer plans and opt for Obamacare. In other words, far fewer people have enrolled than expected.
Secondly, health-benefit providers need a fair amount of young adults to enroll, and that's not happening. Young adults are often healthier and less likely to go to the doctor, therefore their premiums can be used to help offset the high costs of care for sicker and/or older individuals. Threats of penalties in the form of the individual mandate were expected to prompt young adults to enroll, but paying the penalty is typically far less expensive than purchasing health insurance for a full year, even after two huge penalty hikes in 2015 and 2016.
Third, the "risk corridor" that overly profitable insurers were expected to pay into to help struggling insurers has been a disaster. This year, insurers requested $2.87 billion in assistance but received just $362 million -- almost a $2.5 billion shortfall. This lack of assistance led more than half of Obamacare's healthcare cooperative to shutter their doors, and it could seriously discourage new entrants.
Lastly, part of the problem comes down to the consumer. Americans could be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions prior to Obamacare's implementation. Under Obamacare, insurers can't deny coverage to anyone, meaning those sicker individuals on the sidelines have now rushed into the healthcare system.
SPONSORED
I would point out only that Longtime Sharp VodkaPundit Readers™ were aware of every single one of these pitfalls before last year's lame enrollment figures were released, before the exchanges opened for business, and indeed before the "Affordable" Care Act was even singed into law.
And it isn't as though I had any special insight. Any number of right-leaning think tanks and writers and bloggers issued the the same or similar warnings, going all the way back to 2009 -- when President Obama and his cronies were still issuing the daily pravda about saving you $2,500 a year while letting you keep your doctor and your plan.
Given the billions wasted, the people shut out of their previous choices, the growth-and jobs-snuffing taxes, and all the rest, there's really no satisfaction in being proven right.
Maybe at least we'll learn to be a more-effective opposition to the next wave of collectivism.