From The Frying Pan to the Fire
May 5, 2014 Obamacare
Remember Romneycare? You know, the government health care program in Massachusetts that Barack Obama said Obamacare was modeled after. Yeah, that Romneycare.
It was touted as some great accomplishment by Romney who had to defend why he opposed Obamacare when he did the same thing in MA. To his credit, the MA plan was a state initiative and other states are free to try similar approaches. The federal government overstepped its bounds by applying it to all states.
In any event, while Romney was trying to explain his health care plan and how great it was (despite its cost overruns and lack of insurance to many people) Obama was saying it was a great idea and he did nothing more than model his disaster after the disaster in Massachusetts.
Looks like Romneycare is an official failure:
Bay State officials are taking steps this week to junk central parts of their dysfunctional health insurance exchange — the model for President Barack Obama’s health care law — and merge with the federal enrollment site HealthCare.gov. Politico
So the Bay State admits that the exchange that Obama modeled Obamacare after is dysfunctional so to solve the problem MA will use the even more dysfunctional Obamacare exchanges.
While MA is technically only exchanging the exchange system (the meat and potatoes), if you will, the reality is the exchange is part of a larger and more dysfunctional problem. Massachusetts will scrap its bad exchange system for an even worse one.
Romneycare is a disaster. It costs way more than estimated, fails to cover everyone and has resulted in people not receiving health care services.
Obamacare is even worse and on a national level. The exchanges do not work, people are not covered, it costs nearly 2.5 times more than was estimated and it is not generating the enrollment from the demographic needed to support it.
Yes, the liberals in Massachusetts have decided that they should go from bad to worse and call it progress.
This is liberalism and big government in a nutshell.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Only The Morons In Government Could Come Up With This
Jan 1, 2012 Political
One of the reasons I pay attention to government is because it does something even more bizarre and stupid each day. The newest stupid move comes from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC is warning employers about requiring a high school diploma in order for a person to be considered for a job. According to the EEOC this might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Give me a freaking break. I mean, seriously? Since when is not graduating from a school a disability? I am sure there are a few folks who have disabilites that prevented them from graduating but the mere fact that a person did not graduate is NOT a disability. In fact, it shows the person is likely not motivated and should be scrutinized more closely before considering him for a job.
Not having a high school diploma is not a disability and only a mentally disabled person would think such a stupid thing. Since it is not a disability employers have every right to require a high school diploma or anything else.
Imagine this another way. Suppose a law firm required you to graduate from law school in order to be hired. Would the EEOC apply the same logic and claim that requiring a law degree (a diploma from a law school) violates the ADA?
The only disabilities I see are the ones burdening the mentally challenged morons in government who come up with such stupid things.
I do imagine this could be another Obama regime ploy to get even more people dependent on government. Think about it this way. A person without a high school diploma applies for a job that requires one and is rejected. He files a suit because it violates the ADA and he wins a lawsuit. Then it turns out he is otherwise not qualified and he does not get the job. He applies for disability under Social Security and bam, he is a ward of government forever more.
After that we will have more high school drop outs because they want them some of that gubmint money for their disability.
I say if you drop out they should put you in the service and ship you off to a war someplace.
Bet they might get a diploma then.
What in the name of all that is holy has become of this country. Maybe it is just me but if you are going to want a job that requires a diploma of any sort then it would behoove you to get that diploma.
Disability my donkey…
I will note that the EEOC claims the requirement might run afoul if a person has a learning disability that prevents them from graduating high school. OK, so if they can’t learn how are they going to learn the job? This is from the government model ID10T worker…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: ada, disability, eeoc, high school diploma, morons, retards, stupidity
Oh To Work For Obama
Feb 24, 2010 Political
Barack Obama and his government own General Motors (or as GM now means, Government Motors). It must be nice to work for Obama:
After resigning as president and CEO of General Motors in December, Fritz Henderson might have gone into hiding or decided to sit out the harsh Michigan winter on a Florida beach.
Instead, here he is popping up again, this time as a consultant to GM on international operations at the very fancy fee of $59,090 a month for 20 hours of work a month. That works out to almost $3,000 an hour for a CEO who was ousted after just eight months on the job. Money.CNN
3000 dollars an hour is good work if you can get it. And where can I get a job where I get that kind of money and only have to work for 20 hours a month.
Yep, the government took over GM. Does anyone actually think it will make money? Not when it does stuff like this.
But the government is doing a good job bashing Toyota in order to help out GM. Talk about a conflict of interest…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: gm, high salary, Obama, stupidity, toyota
The Constitutional Abuse
Oct 25, 2009 Political
Well, I have looked very carefully at Article one, Section eight, better known as the Interstate Commerce clause, although the enumerated powers delineated therein are more extensive, and specific than the simplistic “title” might suggest. Indeed, there’s quite a bit there, installing and regulating post offices, militias, establishing a uniform set of regulations between states (where this article derives its name) so that states are competitive with one another- a lot in a little space in our Constitution.
But Nancy Pelosi can’t answer a simple question from a reporter on the Constitutionality of Healthcare, specifically the mandate to buy it.
When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
directorblue.blogspot.com
Uh, yeah- the liberal’s bolthole when it comes to legislation they want to shove down our throats- to be fair, both parties have used this when it suited them, but to be fair, there’s not much difference these days between the parties themselves- witness Lindsey Graham or John McCain- neither one truly represents more than the squishy middle, where ideals are watered down to virtually nothing, and the status quo is protected, meaning their jobs.
But back to the clueless Pelosi- I have long held that the botox needle went too deep on her, and hit the brainstem, because she couldn’t even begin to enunciate the reasoning behind the mandate. It was up to the aide to try and explain just how the mandate could even be legal. As usual in politics, he was, and is wrong- but at least he tried.
Nan just had the deer in the headlights look- in other words, looked as she normally appears.
Pelosi avoided answering the question, probably because she doesn’t have an answer. Her spokesman said that it was “not a serious question,” but if so, one would presume that Pelosi or her office could provide an easily-corroborated answer. After all, the Constitution is where Congress derives all of its authority. It’s not exactly a lengthy document. How difficult is it to cite the clause that enables Congress to impose a mandate on its citizens to spend money on anything but a tax?
Well, as it turns out, pretty darned difficult. The interstate commerce clause doesn’t apply because Congress doesn’t allow for interstate commerce in health insurance. The “general welfare” clause has never applied to individual mandates, which is why neither Leahy or Pelosi will invoke it publicly. If they trot that out in front of the Supreme Court, they’ll essentially be arguing that the federal government has the authority to impose any kind of mandates at any time on anyone in the country, which makes the limitations of power in the Constitution meaningless — and by extension, makes the Supreme Court meaningless as well.
themoderatevoice.com
Yes indeed- there is not, nor can there be, a mandate that legally compels me to buy insurance- by their argument, they could compel me , or anyone else, to do pretty much whatever the government chooses for you or me to do, and that is a dictatorship, plain and simple.
If I do not buy insurance, I am not breaking the “Interstate Commerce” clause, because I am not engaging in commerce, interstate or otherwise. If I self pay my doctor, I am not falling afoul of the clause either- both the doctor and I are in the same state. My purchase or not of insurance doesn’t “promote the general welfare” of anyone- period.
Much of the reasoning that is centered around this healthscare bill is torturous, convoluted and wrong. The politicians who want this bill to pass are destroying the Constitution.
Obama had it right in one respect when he said in a speech, that the Constitution is indeed a “negative” document, in that it tells you what you cannot do with respect to the states, and what the states cannot do with respect to the people.
The Constitution is a “People’s” document, one that was drafted to protect the people, not the politicians.
Perhaps Nan the flounder face should read the Constitution.
At least try, Nan.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: botox of the brain, constitution, nancy pelosi, stupidity
Stupidest Idea- Ever
Oct 20, 2009 Political
Well, the Fifth Circuit Court has opened the door for victims of Hurricane Katrina to sue possible emitters of “greenhouse” gases for their plight- never mind that many of them have moved elsewhere and gotten on with their lives.
Also, do not mind the fact that “Global Warming”, ostensibly the grounds for suit, is still hotly contested as real or not. If you ask Al Gore, who stands to make oodles of money from all his green projects, AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a danger to us all.
If you ask others, not so much- especially when many of the people who previously had touted AGW now have had to reverse themselves and admit that the earth has actually cooled in the last ten years.
That aside, these lawyers (yes- there will be lawyers) are going to go after any and all deep pockets industries they can think of in a bid to get lots of money- not necessarily for their clients, but certainly for themselves. Gotta look out for number one, right? They are doing this even when it is hard to prove, A)- that these specific industries have in fact specifically contributed to AGW, and B)- that this alleged AGW aggravation spawned Hurricane Katrina, or Rita, or any other storm. After this year, with no hurricanes making landfall, and no damage from these storms, have they a case? I don’t think so.
For years, leading plaintiffs’ lawyers have promised a legal assault on industrial America for contributing to global warming.
So far, the trial bar has had limited success. The hurdles to such suits are pretty obvious: How do you apportion fault and link particular plaintiffs’ injuries to the pollution emitted by a particular group of defendants?
Today, though, plaintiffs’ lawyers may be a gloating a bit, after a favorable ruling Friday from the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, which is regarded as one of the more conservative circuit courts in the country. Here’s a link to the ruling.
The suit was brought by landowners in Mississippi, who claim that oil and coal companies emitted greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming that, in turn, caused a rise in sea levels, adding to Hurricane Katrina’s ferocity.
blogs.wsj.com
There was no rise in sea levels- that is plain bull- what happened was simple storm surge. Sure storm surge sucks, but that is life plain and simple.
In the 1880s, there was a town on Matagorda Bay in Texas called Indianola. It was a nice town, poised to become a hub of major commerce, having both a port, and a railroad that ran through the town.
A Hurricane came through, a pretty strong one by all accounts (they had no way to measure the strength of hurricanes back then), and hit Indianola head on, literally wiping it off of the face of the earth, leaving only the railroad tracks. People who survived, did so by climbing trees to escape the storm surge, which went inland as far as twenty miles.
When the survivors climbed down, assessed the situation and began to clean up and bury the dead, they vowed to rebuild. After all, they reasoned, that was a freak storm, and would never happen again.
So they rebuilt, better than before, and in less than a year, had their town up and running again (all without any federal assistance).
That next year, another major Hurricane came and wiped them out again, this time destroying even the railroad tracks. Now, there is no port- there are no railroad tracks. Indianola is just a sleepy little bait camp stopover now, and that will be all it ever is again.
But you see, this is before Global Warming, before even the industrial age had much of any effect- before oil and gas, there was just coal, and that was not even in great use here.
So what is the broader significance of the ruling? We checked in with Jackson for his take.
At a minimum, he says, the ruling will invite more climate-change litigation in the future.
“With this decision,” he says, “you are now pretty well assured of seeing others file these kinds of claims.”
Last month, he notes, the Second Circuit held that states and municipalities had standing to sue to impose on caps on certain companies’ greenhouse gas emissions. Here’s an overview from Skadden of that ruling.
In contrast with the Second Circuit, the Fifth Circuit case may be particularly inviting to tort lawyers, since the New Orleans court opened the door to “a case by private litigants, a class action, seeking an enormous amount of damages,” Jackson says.
Still, Jackson notes, the Katrina case is at an early stage, and the Fifth Circuit’s ruling “does not mean there is enough causation evidence to survive a motion to dismiss.”
blogs.wsj.com
Lawyers sure do stick together, don’t they- and they can smell money, even when they have to make up “facts” to suit their case. The people of New Orleans deserve to be able to look ahead and get on with their lives, not stuck in a rut, waiting to see if some lawyer can get them a payday. Stuck in a courtroom, they will never be able to look ahead. The only people who will get rich off of this ridiculous set of claims will be the lawyers, as the case will be bounced from court to court faster than Serena Williams can volley a tennis ball.
This really is The Stupidest Idea- Ever.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]