Saturday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, November 15. 2014

The kids are going to the NYBG Holiday Train show today. A field trip. 1/4 miles of track. Very cool for any age. Best to get tickets online.

Is It Time to Ditch Your Dining Room?

We only use ours about 20 times per year, but it is quite an attractive space with a nice old fireplace. With good friends, we tend to dine in the kitchen unless it's a special occasion.

Grown-Up Flourless Chocolate Espresso Cake

Killer Shrimp, Flying Fish as Big as Teenagers: Great Lakes States Battle Invasive Species

Only women are supposed to be able to talk about gender issues.

Vodkapundit: Climate Change Made Simple

U.S. and China Are Blowing Smoke on Climate Change

Amazing to me that the NYT won't see through the BS

Surber: The first 2016 Electoral College Map looks bad for Democrats

They will find a way to blow it

Liberal Utopia: Boston Dumps Young Black Males into Special Ed

Senate to take up bill to stop mass NSA snooping

In Scathing Letter to Obama, Former FBI Assistant Director Slams Holder as "Chief Among Antagonists" in Ferguson

"And you think it's possible for the State to navigate between not enough minority members in the district and too many minority members in the district without taking race into account."

Grubered Again! Fifth Video of Liberal Mastermind Surfaces

The good story of the amateur Gruber sleuth: A word with the man who…

Also, Obamacare -- the Truth is Out:

It would seem that for the most part, the mainstream media has no issues with the recently surfaced videotaped comments of Jonathan Gruber. Presumably, the media agree with what he said. Of course, liberals have always been the ends-justify-the-means kind of feelers. In other words, they are people you cannot trust to be honest and straightforward when they have an agenda.

Now that the public is faced with the truth of what their government thinks of them, thanks to Gruber (who was paid approx. $400k for his stellar work), the only explanation the Democrats can offer is either 1) Gruber lied (yes, accuse the liar of lying when the lie is discovered!) or 2) everyone does it.

and

The process of passing Obamacare was ugly, the players corrupt, the deals underhanded and the methods disengenuous, but the end result, to a liberal Democrat, erases all that. Like Gruber, they would ‘rather have this bill than not’. If Democrats have to give up truth, transparency, the rule of law and their very souls to get what they want, so be it.

Yes, that is the game. Used car sales.

Noonan: The Loneliest President Since Nixon - Facing adversity, Obama has no idea how to respond.

Oh yes he does: Obama Taunts Republicans: Immigration Action Is “Going To Happen” In 2014 Whether You Like It Or Not…

Good news from NYT: Rogue executive feeling “liberated” by gigantic midterm landslide

Working for ICE 'is hell right now,' as Obama plans amnesty for illegals

The Next Border Crisis - Column: How Congress can fight Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty

Obama's executive amnesty, gateway to Obamacare for illegal aliens

Sultan's Super-Amnesty Will Turn Every City into Detroit:

92% of black male teens in Chicago don’t have a job. In Detroit, 50% of black men are unemployed. It’s not that there aren’t any jobs, but the entry level jobs have been mostly going to immigrants.

Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are doing the jobs I did as a youth

Elizabeth Warren gets rock-star reception at liberal donors confab

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 08:42 | Comments (26) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Nov 16, 09:54

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Immigrants don't have to be paid the minimum wage. Legalize them, and you'll see them unemployed in numbers that will rival those of black youth in Detroit.

#1 Texan99 on 2014-11-15 09:08 (Reply)

Gruber is so representative of the sneaky, underhanded ideological Left, he could be their Poster Child.

#2 Exasperated on 2014-11-15 09:27 (Reply)

Make that poster teen. Pajama boy is liberal poster child for life.

#2.1 BillH on 2014-11-15 10:16 (Reply)

For many people lying and getting away with it would be sufficient. It's fascinating, for Gruber, that wasn't enough and that he needed others to know and applaud him.

#2.2 Exasperated on 2014-11-15 13:20 (Reply)

Bird Dog: Yes, that is the game.

Heh. It's always fun when people discover that politicians act politically. Death panels, anyone?

Obamacare set up minimal standards for insurance, adopted the Republican idea of exchanges to increase market competition, coupled mandates for insured and insurers, and provided subsidies for those who couldn't otherwise afford insurance. None of this was secret, and the information was widely disseminated. However, the most public debate was over the misconstruing of crucial end-of-life counseling as death panels.

It's interesting how much support Kynect has in Kentucky, but everyone hates Obamacare.

#3 Zachriel on 2014-11-15 11:33 (Reply)

QUOTE:

It's interesting how much support Kynect has in Kentucky, but everyone hates Obamacare.

Cite? I just went to the web site and see no information on popularity.

Yeah, I know I'm responding to the bait, but I'm three tall IPA's into my night and can't help it.

#3.1 Mike (Link) on 2014-11-15 22:14 (Reply)

"Most registered voters in Kentucky have an unfavorable view of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act when it is called Obamacare, but a plurality think favorably of Kynect"
http://kyhealthnews.blogspot.com/2014/05/poll-finds-contrasting-views-of.html

Half-a-million Kentuckians signed up for Kynect. As Kynect IS ObamaCare, it suggests a lot of misinformation.

“Kentucky Kynect is a Web site. It was paid for by a $200-and-some-odd-million grant from the federal government. The Web site can continue. But in my view, the best interest of the country would be achieved by pulling out Obamacare, root and branch" — Mitch McConnell

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-16 08:16 (Reply)

Flying carp: Heard about them a couple years ago.

Cultural Conversation Men/Women: The GHHs are the only true speakers. That's their story, and they can't STAND diverging opinions.

Black kids in Boston: “It’s an unintentional consequence of bad policies,...” Bad policies have lots of unintended consequences. Good ones may have fewer. Someone will game the system.

"Minimal standards", says the Gang of Z. HAH!, I say.

#4 Sam L. on 2014-11-15 14:02 (Reply)

Sam L: "Minimal standards"

A policy compliant with the ACA can't be denied due to a preexisting condition; caps are no longer allowed. The policy must provide outpatient care, emergency care, impatient care, pre- and post-natal care, mental health care, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services, lab tests, preventive services, and pediatric services.

#4.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-15 14:22 (Reply)

Yes, an ACA compliant policy forces me to buy things I don't need or want. My wife and I are way past child raising age yet we HAVE to be covered for that. I don't need psychiatric services yet I am forced to by coverage for that. Any ACA policy is much more expensive because it covers pre existing conditions since it covers those who wait till they are sick before they buy coverage.

All this and more are why the policies are not $2500 cheaper than previous ones as Obummer and the Demoncrats. Just another willfull lie to throw on the stack.

#4.1.1 mudbug on 2014-11-15 20:09 (Reply)

mudbug: My wife and I are way past child raising age yet we HAVE to be covered for that.

The nature of insurance is shared risk. On average, older people require more medical care, even after accounting for child-bearing.

mudbug: I don't need psychiatric services yet I am forced to by coverage for that.

Your house probably isn't on fire either, but you probably have fire insurance.

mudbug: Any ACA policy is much more expensive because it covers pre existing conditions since it covers those who wait till they are sick before they buy coverage.

People were covered to some extent before the ACA, but the system was irrational. They would show up in the emergency room, and the law required hospitals to at least stabilize patients before discharge. The purpose of the individual mandate is to rationalize the system.

mudbug: All this and more are why the policies are not $2500 cheaper than previous ones as Obummer and the Demoncrats.

Competition and choice are increasing, while pre-subsidy costs will increase only about 4%, compared to 10% per year before the ACA. See McKinsey Center, 2015 OEP: Emerging trends in the individual exchanges. See also PCW, A look at 2015 individual market health insurance rate filings.
http://healthcare.mckinsey.com/sites/default/files/2015%20OEP%20Emerging%20Trends%20-%20McK%20Reform%20Center_0.pdf

#4.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-16 08:07 (Reply)

Z: The nature of insurance is shared risk

No, the nature of insurance is to indemnify risk, not share it.

Z: Your house probably isn't on fire either, but you probably have fire insurance.

I do have fire insurance but I don't have flood insurance since it is HIGHLY unlikely that I will be the victim of a flood. I guess it could still happen but I choose to take my chances on that. I think my chances are good so I choose to take risk and I will pay the price if I am wrong.

Z: People were covered to some extent before the ACA, but the system was irrational. They would show up in the emergency room, and the law required hospitals to at least stabilize patients before discharge. The purpose of the individual mandate is to rationalize the system.

The irrational system where people go to the emergency room is preserved. Much of the increased coverage comes from expansions of Medicaid. The fact that it tries to rationalize the system by interjecting more irrationality makes no sense. It just incentivizes healthy people (most of us) not to purchase insurance till it is needed thus straining the insurance company's ability to set a rational price and requiring it to set that price high to make sure it doesn't go out of business. But then, that is the real end goal, isn't it?

Z: Competition and choice are increasing, while pre-subsidy costs will increase only about 4%, compared to 10% per year before the ACA. See McKinsey Center, 2015 OEP: Emerging trends in the individual exchanges. See also PCW, A look at 2015 individual market health insurance rate filings.
http://healthcare.mckinsey.com/sites/default/files/2015%20OEP%20Emerging%20Trends%20-%20McK%20Reform%20Center_0.pdf

Nowhere in that link did it substantiate the claim that everybody's premium has or would decrease by $2500. It also did not refute the claim [fact] that people can not keep their plan if they like it and that they may not be able to keep their doctor if they like him. Many of the finest hospitals are not included in ACA coverage (e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/obamacare-patients-without-doctors_n_5044270.html, http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare, http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/health/obamacare-doctors-limited/) Those claims were made by Democrats and the President over and over without reservation knowing they could not be met. In other words, they lied.

#4.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2014-11-16 12:54 (Reply)

mudbug: the nature of insurance is to indemnify risk

That's part of the process.

mudbug: I do have fire insurance but I don't have flood insurance since it is HIGHLY unlikely that I will be the victim of a flood.

Sure, and your insurance for psychiatric care is based on the statistical chance of an individual needing psychiatric care.

mudbug: I guess it could still happen but I choose to take my chances on that.

The problem is that society often ends up having to pay.

mudbug: The irrational system where people go to the emergency room is preserved. Much of the increased coverage comes from expansions of Medicaid.

Medicaid covers non-hospital care.

mudbug: It just incentivizes healthy people (most of us) not to purchase insurance till it is needed thus straining the insurance company's ability to set a rational price and requiring it to set that price high to make sure it doesn't go out of business.

The number of uninsured has decreased, which contradicts your position.

#4.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-16 13:29 (Reply)

Z: The problem is that society often ends up having to pay.

That is correct. Society should not have to pay for my mistake.

Z: Medicaid covers non-hospital care.

Why are emergency rooms clogged with lower income people?

Z: The number of uninsured has decreased, which contradicts your position.

But according to Gallup on March of this year, the uninsured rate is still higher than when Obummer came to office. In addition, the percentage of insured young (18 - 35) is 25% where 40% is the number most often quoted as what is needed to make Obummercare work.

If this is such a great deal, why were we lied to about it? Why have there been so many changes in when parts would become active and why were those changes timed to come after elections?

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2014-11-16 15:05 (Reply)

mudbug: Society should not have to pay for my mistake.

Except that they do.

Before the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, many hospitals would treat all comers. As the cost of medical care increased, other hospitals started dumping their indigent patients on good Samaritan hospitals creating a situation that threatened the continued existence of these hospitals. Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which required hospitals to treat anyone who showed up at their door. This equalized the problem with regards to hospitals.

However, this created a new problem. Hospitals would incur extreme costs for conditions that are easily preventable through routine care. Hospitals ended up trying to save money by providing some routine care. Other hospitals would still direct their patients to good Samaritans. So again, this was untenable in the long run. States would then try to pick up the slack through a hodgepodge of clinics and programs, but millions fell through the crack, and most of the poor simply didn't have access to routine care.

If you want an actual market in healthcare, you have to be willing to refuse care to the indigent. As most people don't want this, rationalizing the system requires having the means in place for paying for care before it is needed.

mudbug: Why are emergency rooms clogged with lower income people?

Because that's how the system has worked until now. Over time, they will be directed to go to primary care doctors where they can receive appropriate care for their situation.

mudbug: But according to Gallup on March of this year, the uninsured rate is still higher than when Obummer {sic} came to office.

"The uninsured rate in the U.S. fell 2.2 percentage points to 13.4% in the second quarter of 2014. This is the lowest quarterly average recorded since Gallup and Healthways began tracking the percentage of uninsured Americans in 2008."
gallup.com/poll/172403/uninsured-rate-sinks-second-quarter.aspx

mudbug: In addition, the percentage of insured young (18 - 35) is 25% where 40% is the number most often quoted as what is needed to make Obummercare {sic} work.

"The uninsured rate in the second quarter averaged 18.7% among 18- to 25-year-olds, 23.9% among 26- to 34-year-olds, and 13.4% among 35- to 64-year-olds."
gallup.com/poll/172403/uninsured-rate-sinks-second-quarter.aspx

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-16 15:31 (Reply)

NO! "your insurance for psychiatric care is based on" cronyism. They handed out "bennies" to the doctors and mental health care workers so they would get their support for the ACA. This entire bill is cronyism and welfare. It is essentially an enormous tax that transfers money and power to Democrat voters and supporters.

I suggest two simply changes to the ACA: 1. Remove all mandates; make everything optional and totaly free choice. 2. Remove any and all subsidies so that everyone who chooses to sing onto the ACA pays 100% of their costs for the benefit that the get.

I would like to see a thrid change and that would be to rename it the Karl Marx health care system.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-11-19 11:26 (Reply)

That doesn't solve the problem of the uninsured. Unless society is willing to let people go without medical care, then there has to be a mechanism to spread the very high cost of modern medicine.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-19 11:36 (Reply)

No there doesn't. Why would anyone think they have a right to tax another and take money at the point of a gun if they don't hand it over willingly to give to a second person? Ignore the fact that socialized health care doesn't work. Ignore that it provides less and worse health care then a private system does. Why should YOU be able to take the fruits of my labor for yourself??? Why not design a health care system for people who do not have health care that requires them to work 20 hours a week for that benefit. Whether they are working 40 hours a week now or laying around on welfare what would be so wrong about the government requiring that they "earn" health care rather then "steal" it? What about lobster? Unless society is willing to let people go without lobster then there has to be a mechanism to spread the high cost of lobster around. What about cavier or sex. Lots of people don't get as much sex as they want should society pay for that and spread the cost around? Where did you ever get the idea it is OK to take money or assets from me at the point of a gun to give to someone else? What arrogance.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-11-19 19:18 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Where did you ever get the idea it is OK to take money or assets from me at the point of a gun to give to someone else?

The Constitution empowers government of the people to tax.

GoneWithTheWind: Why not design a health care system for people who do not have health care that requires them to work 20 hours a week for that benefit.

Many poor already work, even when they are sick. In the old days, a couple of chickens might conceivably pay for medical care, but nowadays, it would take thousands of chickens to pay for even a minor procedure.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-20 06:21 (Reply)

I am happy you brought up the constitution. It is clearly unconstitutional for the federal government to redistribute money. That includes welfare as well as healthcare. The states could certainly do this but not the federal government/

As for being allowed to levy and collect taxes you are begging the question. The constitution mandates some things the federal government must do such as raise a standing army and protect the country and it's borders. That is part of the social and legal contract between all Americans and government. Taking our money to give free stuff to people in exchange for votes is NOT part of that social and legal contract. It is illegal and immoral to take from one according to his ability and give to another according to his needs.

Many poor people do indeed work and many do not either earn enough to purchase health insurance or receive it as a benefit from their job. So what! How does their inability or unwillingness to properly structure their lives obligate me to give them money? It doesn't.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-11-20 10:50 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: It is clearly unconstitutional for the federal government to redistribute money.

All taxing and spending redistributes money, whether you pay a postmaster, pay someone to pave a road, or provide an income for elderly widows. The U.S. Constitution clearly provides a mechanism for taxing and spending.

GoneWithTheWind: any poor people do indeed work and many do not either earn enough to purchase health insurance or receive it as a benefit from their job. So what!

Which brings us back to our original point—which you ignored. You can only have a rational market for healthcare if you leave poor people without healthcare. The old charity system is simply not capable of dealing with the high cost of modern medicine. As the vast majority of Americans are not willing to leave people to suffer or die, that means there has to be a means to pay for coverage.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-20 15:47 (Reply)

Don't be so obtuse. The constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to provide for elderly widows, young widows lazy bums and drug addicts. There is simply no authority for the federal government to "take" from me to "give" to thee. Your weak efforts to justify it detracts from your arguement and doesn't help it.

"the vast majority of Americans are not willing to leave people to suffer or die". I thnk you are wrong but I'm willing to test it out. End ACA and Medicaid and see if the vast majority of Americans will step up to the plate and pay the bill. But do not use the force of government in an unconstitutional effort to "take" from me to satisfy your or others desires to redistribute wealth.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-11-20 16:34 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: The constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to provide for elderly widows, young widows lazy bums and drug addicts.

Apparently, the Supreme Court disagrees, not to mention the first Congress who mandated insurance for Seamen one year after the Constitution was enacted. A few years later, Congress mandated payment into a fund.

GoneWithTheWind: I thnk you are wrong but I'm willing to test it out.

Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act which mandated hospitals provide emergency care, a law which was strongly supported by the public.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-20 17:08 (Reply)

It seems to me that it is a simple truth of life that if the Supreme court were honest that every decision would be unanimous. But for at least 50 years the Supreme Court has been stacked with partisans and they are not honest. The Supremes even found, somewhere, god knows where, the constitutional right to abortions. But in fact 90% of what our federal government does is unconstitutional and our Supremes have long ago abandoned their responsibility to the people. It is not in the constitution that the federal government has any authority or right to take money or assets from one citizen to enrich another citizen. It does not matter if you point to other violations of our constitution to prop up your beliefs the facts are unchanged. I do not think this country will hold together much longer. We have strayed so far from the original intent for so long that there is really no way back. We have borrowed $19 trillion or so to continue our unconstitutional giving of "free stuff" and this can never and will never be paid back. The numbers of crooks, political mafioso and outright treasonous traitors who have stolen money and power through extra-constitutional means is not limited to those who think robbing Peter to pay Paul is charity. You are just one of the many who have rationalized their dishonest actions by claiming to be charitable.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-11-20 19:26 (Reply)

Former FBI Assistant Director Slams Holder as "Chief Among Antagonists" in Ferguson

This is a sad and disgusting display of racial politics to divide the citizens for the benefit of a few Democrats. I think in the early weeks of the Ferguson carnival it was all about getting the base out for the election. The Democrats shamelessly used blacks as they always have to get an edge on the elections. But it evolved away from that and was hijacked by a motley collection of clowns, communists, hate groups and totally unrelated special interests and has taken on a life of it's own. I expect Ferguson will be used and abused by these grievance parasites for their own ends. If this degenerates into riots, violence and mass property damage no one will blame the Democrats, Holder or Obama but it will be their fault never the less. People may die, businesses may burn but none of this matters in the push to get Democrats elected.

#5 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-11-15 14:30 (Reply)

Here's the chocolate cake recipe that I use: flourless chocolate cake.

I've made it several times. It really is good. The main difference, for those that go off to read recipes is the lack of coffee flavoring in the one linked above.

#6 Mike (Link) on 2014-11-15 22:18 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, November 15. 2014

Saturday morning links