JFK Conspiracies Explained

If you've never watched Oliver Stone's JFK, my advice is, "don't bother".  It's revisionist garbage.  It's not even artistic revisionist garbage. 

If you've ever wondered why there are so many JFK assassination conspiracy theories, and why they refuse to die, I recommend you read James Piereson's article in the WSJ.

Immediately after the assassination, leading journalists and political figures insisted that the president was a victim of a "climate of hate" in Dallas and across the nation seeded by racial bigots, the Ku Klux Klan, fundamentalist ministers and anticommunist zealots.

Sounds familiar.

Syndicated newspaper columnist Drew Pearson wrote that JFK was the victim of a "hate drive." Sen. Mike Mansfield, in a eulogy, attributed the assassination to "bigotry, hatred, and prejudice." 

All pretty standard, so far.

For his part, President Lyndon Johnson saw that his job as national leader was to supply meaning to the tragedy. "John Kennedy had died," he said later, "but his cause was not really clear. I had to take the dead man's program and turn it into a martyr's cause."

...

On the international front, Johnson feared a dangerous escalation of tensions with the Soviet Union.

...

Ironically, U.S. leaders adopted a line similar to the one pushed by the Soviet Union and communist groups around the world. They likewise blamed the "far right" for the assassination. A Soviet spokesman said that, "Senator [ Barry ] Goldwater and other extremists on the right could not escape moral responsibility for the president's death."

What was the truth, then?

The assassin was a communist and not a bigot or a right-winger. Oswald defected from the U.S. to the Soviet Union in 1959, vowing when he did so that he could no longer live under a capitalist system. He returned to the U.S. with his Russian wife in 1962, disappointed with life under Soviet communism but without giving up his Marxist beliefs or his hatred of the U.S. By 1963, Oswald had transferred his political allegiance to Castro's communist regime in Cuba.  

...

The assassin's motives for shooting Kennedy were undoubtedly linked to a wish to interfere with the president's campaign to overthrow Castro's government.

That explains why Stone would make a film like JFK.  Stone, like Oswald, is an admirer of, and apologist for Castro and Communism in general - as long as he doesn't have to live under its jackboot heel.

Stone clearly has trouble with the fact that his fellow ideologue (Oswald) murdered one of Stone's heroes (JFK) to protect and avenge another of Stone's heroes (Castro).  That kind of cognitive dissonance can drive anyone crazy.

Students at Historically Black University Lose Insurance to Obamacare

Priceless!



Best lines:

• It's totally unfair.
• This stupidness is Obama's fault.  You haven't done anything Obama, and I'm disappointed in you.
• We don't have that money [$3K/year expected for Obamacare-compliant insurance], we can't even afford books.
• He says he's for his people, but actually, he's not.  He's actually putting money in white people's pockets instead of helping black people out.
• He should've done his research a little bit better.
• When did this pass?
• I didn't know that was even a part of Obamacare. 

Obamacare was always - from the beginning - intended to screw over the young and healthy to subsidize the old and sick.  What did they expect?

Pres Obama: Government Makes Government Inefficient

Pres Obama explained why the Obamacare website is a lemon.

What is true is that, as I said before, our IT systems, how we purchase technology in

the federal government is cumbersome, complicated and outdated. And so this isn’t a situation where — on my campaign, I could simply say, who are the best folks out there, let’s get them around a table, let’s figure out what we’re doing and we’re just going to continue to improve it and refine it and work on our goals. 

If you’re doing it at the federal government level, you know, you’re going through, you know, 40 pages of specs and this and that and the other and there’s all kinds of law involved. And it makes it more difficult — it’s part of the reason why chronically federal IT programs are over budget, behind schedule. 

And one of the — you know, when I do some Monday morning quarterbacking on myself, one of the things that I do recognize is since I know that the federal government has not been good at this stuff in the past, two years ago as we were thinking about this, you know, we might have done more to make sure that we were breaking the mold on how we were going to be setting this up. But that doesn’t help us now. We got to move forward.

So, Pres Obama recognizes that excessive federal regulations make it far more difficult (in some cases impossible) and far more expensive (often prohibitively so) to accomplish anything.

But it never seems to occur to him that excessive federal regulations (like Obamacare, for example) do the same to businesses.  It never seems to occur to him that the cost (time, money, resources, man-hours) of complying with all those regulations makes businesses less efficient, less productive, and less able to hire employees and grow the economy.

And, unlike government, businesses can't just confiscate people's money.

Amazing, isn't it?

Interview: "The Frackers"

Prof Reynolds interviews WSJ reporter, Gregory Zuckerman, about his new book, "The Frackers".

Do watch the whole thing, but a couple things stood out to me.

First, the fracking revolution could have just as easily taken place in Russia, China, or a number of other places, but instead it happened in the US.  One reason for that is stronger property rights in the US than in other countries.  Most fracking in the US takes place om privately owned land.  In most states, the land owner also owns the mineral rights for his/her land.  That means they can make more money from allowing a fracking firm to drill on their land, which gives the land owner more incentive to do so.

It's a great example of how liberty leads to opportunity, which leads to prosperity.

Second, oil giants like ExxonMobil did not initiate the fracking boom.  Smaller firms, whose wells were drying up and didn't have the resources to explore abroad, were more willing to take risks because, essentially, they had nothing to lose.

Anti-fracking regulations "Liberals" demand wouldn't hurt ExxonMobil, but they would kill those smaller firms.

Unfortunately, no discussion on hydraulic fracturing is complete without addressing anti-fracking hysteria.  It's worth noting, then, that former DOE secretary Stephen Chu, no fan of fossil fuels, stated that fracking...

...is something you can do in a safe way,” former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said while speaking in Columbus, Ohio, on Sept. 18. He also said that it was a “false choice” to say that the country can either preserve the environment or acquire cheap natural gas.

Former Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, stated that...

“I would say to everybody that hydraulic fracking is safe,” Salazar said during a conference in Las Cruces, N.M. He said that fracking was “creating an energy revolution in the United States.”

Chu and Salazar joined current Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, who in early September praised fracking as “a big contributor to our carbon reduction” and “a huge economic benefit.” 

And now the British government has reached the same conclusion.

“There are risks but they can all be mitigated” through monitoring and regulation, Neil Dhot, a spokesman in London, said today by telephone. The report, compiled by an independent consultant, is funded by the water industry, he said.

Everything we do involves risk - even doing nothing.  An honest risk analysis of hydraulic fracturing, I believe, demonstrates that the financial benefits of fracking far outweigh the potential risks.

UPDATE: Speaking of fracking, the Bakken formation of North Dakota & Montana is projected to produce about one million barrels per day next year.

The growth of crude oil production in the Bakken region is part of a longer-term trend in drilling efficiency gains and has led North Dakota to rank second in crude oil production in the United States, behind only Texas.

UPDATE: Prof Reynolds has another outstanding column in USA Today in his series about "the America that works and the America that doesn't", which contrasts the successes of the frackers with the "train wreck" of Obamacare.

As I've written here before, there are two Americas: One that works, produces value, and overcomes problems, and one that for the most part doesn't work, consumes wealth, and produces more problems than it solves. 

The America that doesn't work was very much in evidence this past week, as the Obamacare roll out continued to be -- in Democratic Sen. Max Baucus' memorable phrase -- a "train wreck." Writing in The New Republic, John Judis observed that the Obamacare fiasco should make fans of activist government angry, because it will damage big government's brand for decades to come. Well, if you support big government because you think that politicians are more competent or honest than the rest of us, yes, it's a big bummer. Then again, if you really think so highly of politicians, you have more serious problems than that.

Read the whole thing.

Obamacare's Perverse Incentives

One can predict how people will respond to economic incentives with a reasonable degree of certainty.  In terms of public policy, that means that, in general, when you want less of something, you tax it.

For example, DOE Secretary, Steven Chu, proposed high gas taxes to give Americans an incentive to drive their gas-guzzling SUVs less.

When you want more of something, you subsidize it.  That's why governments subsidize "green" energy.

So, what incentives does Obamacare provide?

A key Obamacare incentive is an “employer mandate” that asks businesses to sponsor health insurance (or pay a penalty) if they have more than 50 full-time employees. It defines a full-time worker as one serving 30 or more hours per week. So a firm can avoid the mandate by having fewer than 50 people working full-time. 

Investor's Business Daily compiled a list of 363 employers that decided to cut their employees' hours to less than 30/week to avoid paying for their insurance.  Before you rail against those greedy, evil Capitalist pigs, please note that over 100 of them are public school districts, colleges and universities.

According to the CS Monitor...

• Some 31 percent of franchise businesses and 12 percent of non-franchise businesses say they have already reduced worker hours because of the law.

• About 27 percent of franchise businesses and 12 percent of non-franchise businesses have already replaced full-time workers with part-time employees because of the law.

• Some 41 percent of the non-franchise firms say they already see health-care costs rising because of the law. 

• As the franchise firms look toward the future, 28 percent of them say they’ll stop offering health coverage in 2015 because of the law. One-third of franchise businesses already do not offer health insurance.

Speaking of franchises, Papa John told us so.  Remember?  The following exchange is from an opinion piece John Schnatter wrote for the Huffington Post.

Reporter: "Do you think your -- you know -- franchise owners... are going to cut people hours back to make them part time instead of full time?" 

Me: "Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. That's what they're going to do." 

Reporter: "My understanding is that if you're a full time employee, which is 35 hours or over, you'd be covered. Or if you're part time then you wouldn't be. So wouldn't some business owners just cut people down like 34 hours a week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance?" 

Me: "It's common sense. It's what I call lose-lose."

Mr Schnatter was wrong about one thing; it's not common sense.  It's logic, but there isn't enough of it in circulation to consider it "common".

Another perverse incentive of Obamacare is that it encourages some middle class folk to earn less money so they qualify for a subsidy.

So what is Hammack going to do? If his income were to fall below four times the federal poverty level, or about $62,000 for a family of two, he would qualify for subsidies that could lower his premium cost to as low as zero. If he makes even one dollar more, he gets nothing. 

That’s what he’s leaning toward — lowering his salary...

There is yet one more perverse Obamacare incentive we must consider.

Cathy Wagner says she isn’t political and has never written a lawmaker, much less the

president, but with Obamacare she felt compelled. 

“I really just wanted him to know … I was so hopeful that this plan was going to move us forward, but in fact I think it’s moving us backward,” Wagner said.

Ah, yes.  The audacity of hope!

Wagner and her husband retired early. She was a nurse for 35 years and championed Obamacare, until she received a letter from her insurance company saying it was canceling her policy.

That sounds familiar.

“I was really shocked … all of my hopes were sort of dashed,” Wagner said.

There's that word again.

“’Oh my gosh President Obama, this is not what we hoped for, it’s not what we were told.’ “ 

And again!

She was shocked further to learn that for the same coverage she would pay 35 percent more and have a higher deductible. 

“Our premium for next year is going up to over $1,000 a month for two of us and we’re two fairly healthy individuals,” Wagner said. 

So, where is the perverse incentive?

For the first time she’s considering going without health insurance. 

“The whole plan was to get everyone enrolled so there’s a larger risk pool and our costs go down,” she said. “Wow, not at all what we’re seeing.” 

By making health insurance more expensive (the opposite of what it was supposed to do), Obamacare encourages many people (especially the young and healthy) to forego insurance and pay the fine instead.  Worst of all, Obamacare can't function without young, healthy people subsidizing the old and sick.

This is why the argument over the website - though entertaining - is futile.  The law is rotten to its core.  Fixing the website won't change that.

There's just one question left.  Is the rot a bug... or is it a feature?

UPDATE: I somehow forgot the most obvious - and potentially worst - perverse incentive Obamacare provides - the tax on medical devices.

Bloomberg columnist Megan McArdle calls this one of the big open questions. In her piece “Is Obamacare Pulling the Plug on Medical Innovation?” she noted: 

The only way to find out, of course, is to wait (though really, we’ll still end up arguing: If medical innovation falls, the law’s supporters can always say it would have fallen anyway; if it goes up or stays steady, the opposition can always argue that it would have risen further). But here’s one sign to watch: Venture-capital investment in medical technology seems to be falling fast. 

Is this related to Obamacare? Frustratingly, it’s hard to tell… [But] a tax on medical devices and a more stringent cost-control environment could hardly help. 

As a practicing physician, I’m deeply troubled by the possibility of any slowdown in innovation, especially because we’re on the cusp of a new round of potentially game-changing medical advances. Some recent examples include: 

* 3D printing of replacement body parts 

* Personalized medicine using individuals’ genetic data 

* New diagnostic tests that can detect lung cancer with a breath 

* “Spleen on a chip” to fight infection 

* Real-life tricorder 

* Bionic eyes 

As McArdle notes in a separate piece, other innovations may be less glamorous but still vitally important in preserving quality of life, such as a new bladder control prosthesis that helps prevent urinary infections in patients with spinal cord injuries and neurodegenerative diseases. 

But many medical device manufacturers run on extremely thin margins. Small differences in the tax and regulatory environment can mean the difference between a product coming to market — or being abandoned as not worth the effort. 

It’s easy to see the lives saved by products that exist. But it’s almost impossible to know which lives would have been saved by innovations that never made it to market. This is just an application of Frederic Bastiat’s old principle of “the seen vs. the unseen.”

Remember, when you want less of something, tax it.  Why would we want fewer medical innovations?  Is there some advantage I don't see?

Mitt Romney Told You So

I never liked Mitt Romney much as a candidate, but by comparison...

And, oh, by the way; Joe Wilson was right.

Olympic Weightlifter Holley Mangold on ‘The Biggest Loser’ (Continued)

I'm not a fan of "The Biggest Loser", mostly because I disagree with their training methods.  For example, a 300 lb+ person probably shouldn't run at all.



Running applies a lot of stress to the body.  Good technique allows a runner to use his/her muscles, tendons and ligaments (i.e., elastic tissues) to absorb and damp that stress.  Though there are probably exceptions, It's unlikely that a 300 lb+ person knows how to do that, which means all that stress gets absorbed by the bones and cartilage of the lower legs - typically the knees.  That's bad news.

I am, however, a big fan of Olympic weightlifting.  And as I mentioned earlier, super heavy weightlifter Holley Mangold joined the cast.



Another reason I'm not a fan of "The Biggest Loser" is the inordinate amount of focus the producers place on contestants' sob stories (clearly, I'm not the target audience).

Squatting at the Olympic Training Center.  Courtesy, Hookgrip

Ms Mangold must not have a sob story, because they've given her very little screen time.  The clip above, however, gave her a chance to highlight her skill and provided a couple interesting quotes.

First, note that, in performing the clean, she caught the bar on her shoulders without gripping it.  Her wrist must still be bothering her.

I shattered my wrist during the Olympics and am now on the road to recovery. Before competing, I had some torn ligaments in my wrist. During the competition I was so determined to total that I tore every ligament, which made the bones scatter throughout my wrist. I came back to Colorado to do my surgery.

 In the clip, Bob Harper said, "I want to show Holley that she can be smaller and stronger.  Weight goes down, strength goes up."

Holley said, "ever since I lost weight and I thought it ruined my weightlifting... it's really hard for me to step back and say, 'I want to lose weight because... of me.'"

I'm not sure how the producers edited that comment.  I also don't know what she means when she says that loosing weight ruined her weightlifting.  When did she lose weight?  How much?  What did she do to lose weight?  How badly did her total suffer?

What I do know, however, is that there are women who are smaller and stronger than Holley.  Case in point, Tatiana Kashirina, current record holder in the clean and jerk (190 Kg = 419 lb).


I wish Ms Mangold all the luck in the world, both in her Olympic goals and her health goals.  And I hope her time on the show brings the sport of weightlifting more of the exposure it deserves.

Keeping the President in the Dark

Remember when "Liberals" assured us that Pres Obama is "The smartest kid in class"?

He is, as guest expert David Gergen noted on CNN after the news conference, not only "up to speed" on the pressing issues of our time but also articulate about addressing them in a friendly, accessible way. He's not the student who wears a button that says, "Smartest kid in class," but clearly he is...

In fact, he's the smartest president ever!

Historian Michael Beschloss: “Uh. I would say it’s probably - he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.”

What happened to him?  Because, these days, he looks more like this.

He's the last to know about every piece of bad news that emanates from his administration.  In fact, he only learns of bad news from the same news reports that informed the rest of us.



And he's outraged!  Not outraged enough to actually do anything about it, but trust him, he's outraged!

Apparently, someone in the Obama Administration is keeping Pres Obama in the dark about what the Obama administration is doing.  And they seem to be getting away with it, too, because no one's been held accountable for any of it.

It's such a shame to waste the presidency's most prodigious intellect ever by withholding information from him.

UPDATE: He didn't know anything about the website's troubles either.

OK. On the website, I was not informed directly that the website would not be working as — the way it was supposed to. Has I been informed, I wouldn’t be going out saying, boy, this is going to be great. You know, I’m accused of a lot of things, but I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying, this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity, a week before the website opens, if I thought that it wasn’t going to work. 

So, clearly, we and I did not have enough awareness about the problems in the website. Even a week into it, the thinking was that these were some glitches that would be fixed with patches, as opposed to some broader systemic problems that took much longer to fix and we’re still working on them.

He was not informed.  Whose job was it to inform him?  Is he holding that person accountable?  I like how Mary Katherine Ham puts it.

Neat how his ignorance is proof of his smarts. “I don’t think I’m stupid enough…” 

Then, there's the inimitable Mark Steyn.

So, if I follow correctly, the smartest president ever is not smart enough to ensure that his website works; he’s not smart enough to inquire of others as to whether his website works; he’s not smart enough to check that his website works before he goes out and tells people what a great website experience they’re in for. But he is smart enough to know that he’s not stupid enough to go around bragging about how well it works if he’d already been informed that it doesn’t work. So he’s smart enough to know that if he’d known what he didn’t know he’d know enough not to let it be known that he knew nothing. The country’s in the very best of hands. 

Oh, and by the way, buying insurance is hard.

The most telling line, the one that encapsulates the gulf between the boundless fantasies of the faculty-lounge utopian and the messiness of reality, was this: “What we’re also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy.” Gee, thanks for sharing, genius. Maybe you should have thought of that before you governmentalized one-sixth of the economy. By “we,” the president means “I.” Out here in the ruder provinces of his decrepit realm, we “folks” are well aware of how complicated insurance is. What isn’t complicated in the Sultanate of Sclerosis? 

 Oh, boy....

Obamacare: Told You So (Continued)

In a speech to supporters, Pres Obama claimed that he didn't say what he said about Obamacare.

But ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is, you’ve got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage, because that, too, was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning.

If only there existed some recording device that would allow us to verify if he actually said that...





Got that? "Period."  End of statement.  Nothing more need be said.  "No matter what you've heard."  That doesn't sound much like, "if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is, you’ve got to replace them" to me.  Maybe I'm wrong. 

Since then, Pres Obama gave a semi, sort of, non-apology-apology to the millions of Americans who don't get to keep the health insurance they liked. 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

That prompted this response from Conn Carroll.

I dont get it. Why is Obama apologizing for people losing their insurance? Last week he said they were all junk policies. Was he lying then? [Hint; yes. ~ O.S.]

Or is he lying now? (Hint; yes)  Also, does that mean that those of us who opposed Obamacare from the start are no longer hostage taking terrorists with a gun to poor, sick Americans' heads?

Nah... can't be.

Trouble is that, as of today, the White House website still read...

If You Like the Insurance You Have, Keep It:
Nothing in the proposal forces anyone to change the insurance they have. Period.

... and as of two days ago, it read...

"For Americans with insurance coverage who like what they have, they can keep it. Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change the insurance they have, period."

Citizen Link also found the president's defense of his own comments curious.

So, the very clip the White House used in 2009 to "debunk the mythology" is now the very clip they say people don't understand?

The argument goes like this: if the president says it, it's true, and you're wrong.  And if the president now says that what he said is not what he is saying, then that becomes what's true, and you're still wrong!  

Of course!  Don't you know?  Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia!  And when it's not, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia!  Now shut up and enjoy your "free" "health" "care", you racist ingrate!

By the way, those Republican terrorists warned back in 2010 that this would happen, and tried to prevent it, but Democrats voted unanimously to block the intervention.

Senate Democrats voted unanimously three years ago to support the Obamacare rule that is largely responsible for some of the health insurance cancellation letters that are going out. 

In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it.

But hey, it's "only 5%" of the population, right?

Five percent of 317 million is just under 16 million people. 

Imagine if Bernie Madoff had swindled 16 million people. 

No, that doesn't quite do it justice. Imagine if Bernie Madoff had swindled 16 million people, many of whom never agreed, or had any desire, to do business with him in the first place. 

Good point.  Madoff was a crook, but he never took anyone's money with threats of prison time and worse.  Government does that yearly.  Besides, what if it's more than just 5%?

advisers did say in 2010 that there were large caveats and that anyone whose insurance plan changed would lose the promised protection of being able to keep existing plans. And a report in 2010 said that as many as 69 percent of certain employer-based insurance plans would lose that protection, meaning as many as 41 million people could lose their plans even if they wanted to keep them and would be forced into other plans. Another 11 million who bought their own insurance also could lose their plans. Combined, as many as 52 million Americans could lose or have lost old insurance plans.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/07/207909/analysis-tens-of-millions-could.html#storylink=cpy

Yep.  Told you so.  Now Pres Obama promises to fix the problem.

Q    Josh, the President last night mentioned, when he apologized for problems with the cancellations of policies,that he was going to instruct his administration to go back with some sort of a loop.  Can you flesh that out?  What are you guys looking at in terms of canceled policies? 

MR. EARNEST:  I’m not in a position to add a whole lot of additional detail to what the President said last night.  The President did acknowledge that there are some gaps in the law that need to be repaired.  He has directed his team to consider some administrative solutions to those problems, some steps that his administration could take unilaterally that would address some of those gaps.

Wait a minute.  I thought this wasn't a problem.  I thought the percentage of Americans affected was insignificant, and they could just "look for better insurance on the exchanges", because "that's what they're for".  Why would he need to fix this non-issue?

And what if the cure is worse than the disease?

The problem with the President’s public statement is that he has now frozen the individual insurance market in place until he announces his new solutions. If you are one of the 8-10 million Americans with a canceled insurance policy, President Obama just created an enormous incentive for you to hold off on buying a new policy, to wait for the Administration to offer you a new solution.

 Had they announced a new solution today, they would not have created this problem. The disincentive to buy a new plan comes from offering hope of a better outcome with no specificity or timeframe.

Obamacare desperately needs people to sign up, especially young, healthy people to make up for the cost of ensuring  older, sicker people.  But they aren't.

Younger, healthier Americans needed to make Obamacare financially viable are not signing up in sufficient numbers. Most enrollees have been people older than 50, many with pre-existing medical conditions.

The skew toward the older crowd raises concerns that there will not be enough payments from young people to offset the cost of providing coverage for the older, ailing population, the Wall Street Journal reported.

If the older drift continues, a more expensive base of customers, older and less healthy, would drive up costs for everyone. The federal government has committed to reimburse insurers if they underestimated costs.

Even the uninsured are avoiding the Obamacare exchanges.

The health exchange websites are not only fraught with the technical problems that have led to so much news coverage in recent weeks, but have also generated relatively little interest or use among uninsured Americans -- the primary target group for the exchanges. The majority of uninsured Americans are unfamiliar with the exchanges and relatively few have tried to access them to date, even among those who say that eventually, they will most likely get their insurance through an exchange website.

Most uninsured Americans are young and healthy, which is why they opt out of health insurance in the first place.  But they are precisely the people Obamacare needs to succeed.  And because Obamacare actually makes insurance more expensive (the opposite of what it was supposed to do), they are more likely to continue to opt out and instead pay the fine.

And now, Pres Obama just gave them another incentive to avoid the Obamacare exchanges.  Told you so.

Obamacare: Told You So (Continued)

Bill Maher says "Liberals" are Stupid.

 

You see, Pres Obama had to lie to get the "Affordable" "Care" Act passed because Americans are too stupid to make decisions on their own about their health care.  But that means that the people who needed Pres Obama to lie to them are the ones who supported Obamacare based on Pres Obama's promises, because If they'd understood that they couldn't keep their insurance if they liked it, they wouldn't have supported the bill.

Who supported Obamacare based on Pres Obama's promises?  "Liberals" did.

Who opposed it from the beginning?  Conservatives did.

Who warned "Liberals" the "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" promise was a lie?  Conservatives did.

Who warned "Liberals" that the coverage Obamacare mandates would make health insurance more, not less, expensive?  Conservatives did.

Taking the preceding into consideration then, Maher's "stupider" Americans are the "Liberals" who swallowed Pres Obama's oft-repeated lie hook, line and sinker.



Let's meet two of them, shall we?

San Francisco architect Lee Hammack says he and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are

“cradle Democrats.” They have donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obama’s re-election.

Can't get more "Liberal" than that.

Since 1995, Hammack and Brothers have received their health coverage from Kaiser Permanente, where Brothers worked until 2009 as a dietitian and diabetes educator. “We’ve both been in very good health all of our lives – exercise, don’t smoke, drink lightly, healthy weight, no health issues, and so on,” Hammack told me.

 She even worked for an insurance company.  Can't claim ignorance, then.

 The couple — Lee, 60, and JoEllen, 59 — have been paying $550 a month for their health coverage — a plan that offers solid coverage, not one of the skimpy plans Obama has criticized. But recently, Kaiser informed them the plan would be canceled at the end of the year because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The couple would need to find another one. The cost would be around double what they pay now, but the benefits would be worse.

Must've been a "cut rate plan" from one of those "bad apple insurers", right?

I tried to find flaws in what Hammack told me. I couldn’t find any.

• The couple’s existing Kaiser plan was a good one.

• Their new options were indeed more expensive, and the benefits didn’t seem any better.

• They do not qualify for premium subsidies because they make more than four times the federal poverty level, though Hammack says not by much.

How is this possible?

I asked Hammack to send me details of his current plan. It carried a $4,000 deductible per person, a $40 copay for doctor visits, a $150 emergency room visit fee and 30 percent coinsurance for hospital stays after the deductible. The out-of-pocket maximum was $5,600. 

What about the new plan?

The letters said the couple would be enrolled in new Kaiser plans that would cost nearly $1,300 a month for the two of them (more than $15,000 a year). 

And for that higher amount, what would they get? A higher deductible ($4,500), a higher out-of-pocket maximum ($6,350), higher hospital costs (40 percent of the cost) and possibly higher costs for doctor visits and drugs. 

When they shopped around and looked for a different plan on California's new health insurance marketplace, Covered California, the cheapest one was $975, with hefty deductibles and copays. 

So, their new plan with KP is $1,300 - $550 = $750, or 2.36 times more expensive per month.  The cheapest plan they found was $975 - $550 = $425, or 1.77 times more expensive per month.  And for all that added expense, they get worse coverage.  Obamacare is awesome!

What is going on here? Kaiser isn’t a “bad apple” insurer and this plan wasn’t “cut rate.” It seems like this is a lose-lose for the Hammacks (and a friend featured in a report last month by the public radio station KQED.)

It's called economics, genius.

Kaiser has canceled about 160,000 policies in California, and about one third of people were in plans like Hammack’s, Stenrud said. About 30,000 to 35,000 were in his specific plan. 

“There’s an aspect of market disruption here that I think was not clear to people,” Stenrud acknowledged. “In many respects it has been theory rather than practice for the first three years of the law; folks are seeing the breadth of change that we’re talking about here.”

It was clear to those of us who warned about it.  But wait - here's where it gets really good.

That’s little comfort to Hammack. He’s written to California’s senators and his representative, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., asking for help.

Are you freaking kidding me?!  They want help from "we have to pass the plan so you can find out what's in it" Pelosi?



We told you so!  We've been telling you since 2009, but you wouldn't listen!  I guess you know what's in it now, "Liberals"!  But wait, it gets better!

“We believe that the Act is good for health care, the economy, & the future of our nation. However, ACA options for middle income individuals ages 59 & 60 are unaffordable. We’re learning that many others are similarly affected. In that spirit we ask that you fix this, for all of our sakes,” he and Brothers wrote.

There's that word again!  I thought this was supposed to be the "Affordable" "Care" Act!  But wait, there's more!

So what is Hammack going to do? If his income were to fall below four times the federal poverty level, or about $62,000 for a family of two, he would qualify for subsidies that could lower his premium cost to as low as zero. If he makes even one dollar more, he gets nothing. 

That’s what he’s leaning toward — lowering his salary or shifting more money toward a retirement account and applying for a subsidy.

Didn't Hammack say that "We believe that the Act is good for health care, the economy, & the future of our nation"?  How is it "good for... the economy & the future of our nation" for middle class people to make less money so they can receive more money from the government?  Where does the government get that money?

By the way, we told you this would happen!  We told you that people respond to economic incentives, and that the incentives Obamacare offers are all wrong! 

But wait - here's the best part!

“We’re not changing our views because of this situation, but it hurt to hear Obama saying, just the other day, that if our plan has been dropped it’s because it wasn’t any good, and our costs would go up only slightly,” he said.

Even a flat worm will react to pain by changing its behavior.  So, I guess that means Bill Maher is right.  I can't believe I just wrote that!

Keeping Men Weak

Tracy Anderson is a celebrity "fitness" (one must use that term loosely in this case) trainer who gained infamy among strength training enthusiasts by stating that "no woman should lift more than three pounds".

Though there is some push-back against it, this kind of thinking is unfortunately common among women.  So many of them seem to equate weakness with femininity, that we're used to seeing that kind of drivel aimed at women.  Not being content with keeping women weak, however, Ms Anderson now wants to expand her weakness regimen to men.

This month, she'll launch a treadmill-like contraption with a built-in obstacle course called the Men's High-Intensity Machine at two of her four gyms (in California and New York), and she'll follow up in early 2014 with a manly fitness DVD. 

Define "manly"...

To a retrograde gym rat, Anderson's made-for-guys routines look girly—you won't lift a free

weight over 10 pounds and many of the motions appear negligible.

So, women should never lift more than three pounds, and men shouldn't lift more than 10 lb.  Oh, boy.

However, the high reps will leave you hurting. In a typical session, you might throw punches with light dumbbells before lifting that same weight in a floor-to-ceiling row, as if yank-starting a lawn mower. (Her masculine workouts pay special attention to the pecs, biceps, triceps, and delts.) Next, you're doing push-ups with oblique crunches. Six or so floor exercises, and it's on to cardio, grabbing overhead elastic bands and incorporating them into jumps and squats. Every move engages a multitude of muscles, especially around the core. The result: none of the "compartmentalized" bulk seen on dudes waddling from weight room to smoothie bar.

Maybe that weight vest she's wearing makes up for the lack of free weights.

What's the logic behind the Tracy Anderson Method (TAM)? "The body has more than 600 muscles," she says. "Most fitness regimens only tap into 200. I get to 400."

How does she know that?

TAM is designed to confuse muscles, making them—and your heart and lungs—work harder.

Muscles don't get confused.  Please, everyone stop using that ridiculous phrase!

Moves are contrived to tire out the big groups so that lesser-known "accessory muscles" (i.e., the ones deep in your doughy middle or beneath fleshy arms) activate. In other words, wear down the starting lineup so your benchwarmers can show the crowd what they're capable of.

What does that even mean?  Here's my favorite quote.

"You are how you move," says Tracy Anderson, crossing her sinewy legs. "You don't want to be strong and clumsy, like a bison; you want to be strong and agile, like a jaguar."

It's ironic that she chose that comparison, because, while jaguars are undeniably strong and agile, bison are no slouches in either department. 

The bison, shaggy behemoth of the Great Plains, despite weighing as much as a ton, can race up to 40 mph, jump up to 6 feet vertically and can quickly pivot to combat predators. 

Sounds pretty damned agile to me.  Obviously, animals can be both strong and agile, but what about humans?

First, we must define both terms.

Strength - The ability of a muscular unit, or combination of muscular units, to apply force.

The simplest way to test strength is to measure how much weight a person can lift.

Agility - The ability to minimize transition time from one movement pattern to another.

To test agility, we measure how quickly a person changes directions in multiple dimensions (front to back, side to side, up and down).

Is there a sporting event that tests both strength and agility?  Why, I'm glad you asked, because there is!  It's called the CrossFit Games!  First, lets look at an event that tested strength.



Lucas Parker and Aja Barto both clean and jerked 345 lb and cleaned 355 lb.  Rich Froning clean and jerked 345 lb.  They did all that on the second event of the third day of a grueling four day competition, which means they were no where near fresh or rested.  Clearly, these dudes are strong, but are they agile?  Let's look at two events that tested agility.

The "Zigzag sprint" tested their ability to change directions forwards and sideways.  Note that Aja Barto took 3rd in this event.



The "Sprint Chipper" tested - among other things - their ability to change directions front to back and vertically.  Note that Rich Froning took 1st in this event, and Lucas Parker took 8th.



Though some are stronger than others, and some are more agile than others, clearly these men are both strong and agile.  And all of them lift a hell of a lot more than 10 lb.

Only time will tell if Tracy Anderson's ridiculous method will ever catch on with men, but it's clear from events like the CrossFit Games that one need not be slow in order to be strong.  Nor does one need to be weak in order to be agile.  One can improve all 10 components of fitness if one trains intelligently.  It's bad enough that so many women insist on being weak.  Let's hope Tracy Anderson's weakness regimen doesn't catch on with men.

Pres Obama Presided Over 5 of 6 Biggest Deficits Ever

Pres Obama is now on record for presiding over five of the six biggest federal deficits in history.

In fiscal 2013, which ended Sept. 30, the deficit was $680.276 billion, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released Wednesday. 

In fiscal 2012, the deficit was $1.089193 trillion; in fiscal 2011, it was $1.296791 trillion; in fiscal 2010, it was $1.294204 trillion; and, in fiscal 2009, it was $1.415724 trillion.

At least we're finally overspending less that a trillion/year.  When was that 5th-biggest deficit of all time?

Even when adjusted for inflation, the $680.276 billion fiscal 2013 deficit is only exceeded by one pre-Obama deficit--the one the U.S. government ran in 1943, during the height of World War II. That year, the deficit was $54,554,000,000--or $738,367,890,000 in inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars.

That means that the last time we overspent by as much as we routinely overspend today was when we were fighting the biggest war in history.  If that doesn't sound reasonable, that's because it isn't.

Remember when Sen Obama (D, IL) promised a "net spending cut"?  You didn't actually believe that, did you?




Because this is what actually happened.

2008 -- $2,982.5 Billion
2009 -- $3,517.7 Billion
2010 -- $3,457.1 Billion
2011 -- $3,603.1 Billion
2012 -- $3,537.1 Billion
2013 -- $3,454.3 Billion

Does this look like a "net spending cut" to anyone?  It's possible that under some definition of "net spending cut", the result would fit, but I can't think of one.  It makes me think of this line from "The Princess Bride".



These days, Pres Obama equates the desire to cut federal spending with mental illness.

That includes the obsession with cutting just for the sake of cutting. That hasn’t helped our economy grow; it’s held it back.

See?  It's an obsession!  One could even say, a compulsion!  By the way, how does he know that cuts in federal spending have held our economy back?  When did we actually cut spending by any significant percentage?  And, doesn't that mean that Sen Obama (D, IL) was equally crazy in 2008?

On top of that, he brags about reducing the federal deficit.

Remember, our deficits are getting smaller — not bigger. On my watch, they’re falling at the fastest pace in 60 years

So, after racking up the four biggest deficits in history, he brags that he racked up the 6th biggest deficit in history.

Sounds reasonable.

After all, as of 3 Nov 2013, we're only $17,156,117,102,204.49 according to the US Treasury.  Clearly, those who object to adding a few more $Trillion to the pyre are insane.

Fear not, reasonable citizen.  Those trillions are on their way.  The chart above, though accurate, vastly understates the problem, because it doesn't take into account the $Trillions the US federal government has promised its own citizens, which it can't afford.  These are called unfunded liabilities.  No one seems to agree on how much they actually total, but one thing's for sure, the totals are staggering. 

In 2011, USA Today published that...

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

In 2012, The Wall Street Journal published that...

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. 

The totals will only grow as time goes on.  So, by all means, let's listen to Pres Obama (Version 2013) and not Sen Obama (Version 2008).  Let's keep spending wantonly.  After all, it's only money.  Right?