Monday, February 22, 2016

Obamacare is looting the Treasury to pay off insurers!

The New York Post ^ | February 21, 2016 | Betsy McCaughey 

The Obama administration will tell any lie and break any law to prevent the president’s signature health-care program from collapsing.
Insurance companies such as UnitedHealthcare and Aetna are losing billions trying to sell ObamaCare plans, and the risk is they’ll drop out at the end of 2016. No insurance companies means no ObamaCare.
In 2014, the White House tried to avert that disaster by promising insurers a taxpayer-funded bailout, but public outrage and quick action by Sen. Marco Rubio put a stop to it. Now the administration is at it again.
Desperate to keep insurers on board, the administration scrambled to find another pot of money. Unfortunately, once again, a big part of that money pot belongs to the public.
President Obama doesn’t seem to care. On Feb. 12, the administration announced that the money will be handed out to insurers — a whopping $7.7 billion this year alone. But it’s not just expensive: That huge handout to the insurance industry is also illegal.
This is money you and everyone else who already has insurance are forced to pay, called a reinsurance fee. You pay the fee whether you buy your own plan or get covered at work, even if your employer self-insures. You may be clueless about it, but the fee is buried in your premium or taken out of your compensation.
The text of the Affordable Care Act is clear as a bell on what this money can be used for.
Some of these annual fees — adding up to billions a year — belong to the public, not the insurance companies. The law states a fixed share “shall be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury of the United States and may not be used” to offset insurance companies’ losses.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

Socialism and the delusion of rich people as your enemy!

canadafreepress.com ^ | 2/22/2016 | Herman Cain 

You might have seen Dan's piece on Friday about the food crisis in Venezuela, or earlier in the week about the fact that young Bernie Sanders supporters demonstrate in polls that they have no idea what socialism actually is.
We've talked a lot about this both on The Herman Cain Show and here on the web site, and obviously a large part of the problem is that young voters enthusiastic for socialism don't remember real-life consequences of socialism like, say, the poverty and hopelessness that endured behind the Iron Curtain for 44 years.
Or they're convinced for some reason that this time it really would be different. Given the horrendous history of socialism I have no idea why anyone would believe that, but it's not uncommon for a young generation to think they can be the first ones to do successfully what all their predecessors failed at.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...

Turning Against Trump

American Thinker ^ 

People who pride themselves on rational thinking know there are few feelings worse than being wrong about something, especially something that they made a big noise about at the time. What helps lessen this intellectual humiliation is understanding that, given the information available at the time, the decision was a rational one at the time. The remedy for the initial error is to use the newly available information to reach a more reasoned decision.
As the campaign season goes forward, we're learning more about Donald Trump's politics and seeing his initial ebullient puckishness too often give way to self-referential arrogance and venomous hubris. Now is a good time for Trump supporters to use this new information to revisit their original conclusion about him and to realize, with no shame attached, that he's not the candidate they thought he was...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

The Myth of Trump’s Inevitability

The National Review ^ | February 21, 2016 | John Fund 

So if we are headed for a contested convention, what will happen? I don't know, but I do know that Republican delegates will be leery of nominating a candidate viewed unfavorably by 60 percent of general-election voters - as is the case with Donald Trump. In the RealClearPolitics average of all polls, Trump is the only major candidate who loses to Hillary Clinton (45.3 percent to 42.5 percent).

In his victory speech in South Carolina, Donald Trump vowed to sweep the twelve primaries held on Super Tuesday, March 1, and implied the race would then be over: "Let's put this thing away!"
He also belittled rivals who claimed that as the field shrinks, they will be able to close on Trump and deny him the nomination. "They're geniuses!" he mocked. "They don't understand that as people drop out, I'm going to get a lot of those votes also."
Not so fast, Donald. We have had three contests so far, and the field has narrowed from twelve candidates before Iowa to five now. But Trump's numbers have bounced around from 24 percent in Iowa to 35 percent in New Hampshire to 32 percent in South Carolina. His average is a tad under 31 percent.
Trump is the front-runner, but he has to find a way to win a majority of the delegates, and the kind of campaign he's running is making it harder for him to crack a ceiling of about a third of the vote. In the run-up to South Carolina, Trump came out in favor of the health-care mandate, defended Planned Parenthood, accused George W. Bush of lying about the Iraq War, and stood by his call to impeach Bush. (He later retreated on the mandate and on Bush's supposedly lying.) His consistent inconsistency helps explain why only four in ten GOP voters in a new Associated Press poll view Trump in a positive light. He will have trouble growing his coalition to win a majority of delegates, even as more candidates drop out.
Trump also will have a bit of bad luck over the next three weeks, because so many of the contests during that time will be in southern states where Ted Cruz has appeal. Marco Rubio also stands to inherit many of Jeb Bush's financial backers and the lion's share of his voters, giving him staying power by consolidating "establishment" voters.
Sources close to Trump say that as the front-runner, he stands to clean up in states with winner-take-all rules. That will propel him to the nomination, they believe. But not a single state is winner-take-all until Florida (99 delegates) and Ohio (66 delegates) vote on March 15. With Jeb Bush's dropping out, Marco Rubio probably has an advantage over Trump in his home state, as does John Kasich in Ohio. Kasich is likely to stay in the race in hopes he can use his delegates to become a power broker at the GOP convention in Cleveland in July. After Florida and Ohio, there are only seven other states that are winner-take-all, making it all the harder for an early nominee to emerge before the convention.
The race goes on from Florida and Ohio. New York will allocate 95 delegates by congressional district on April 19, at which point 68 percent of the delegates will have been awarded. That's the traditional point at which the GOP nomination race has concluded in the past, but this year it is very likely to go on. The primaries end on June 7, when California will use a congressional-district allocation method to divvy up 172 delegates.
The calendar and the way the state contests are organized basically mean that in order to win a majority of delegates by the beginning of June, a single candidate would have to have won more than 45 percent of the popular vote. GOP lawyer Ben Ginsburg, who has worked in every presidential campaign cycle since 1988, recently observed that the 2016 calendar "quite deliberately avoids having a mid-March nominee." As he outlined this week in Politico:
The 2016 rules are much the same as the ones that dragged out Romney's victory, but the circumstances of the race all point to a longer, harder fight. Traditionally, the Republican nominee is known when more than 68 percent of the delegates have been chosen, which won't happen until April 19 this year.
Ginsburg noted that it will be very hard for any one candidate to "run the table" during the primaries in the first half of March. The difficulty of any candidate's doing so well after that is also slim. This means we might be looking at a contested convention in which delegates are bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to - but only on the first ballot.
Even diehard believers in the Power of Trump have to use strained reasoning to give Trump a majority of delegates at the end of the primaries.
So if we are headed for a contested convention, what will happen? I don't know, but I do know that Republican delegates will be leery of nominating a candidate viewed unfavorably by 60 percent of general-election voters - as is the case with Donald Trump. In the RealClearPolitics average of all polls, Trump is the only major candidate who loses to Hillary Clinton (45.3 percent to 42.5 percent). It's certainly possible that Trump will try to "cut a deal" with Ted Cruz or John Kasich so he can secure a delegate majority, but there are a lot of obstacles to that.
No one is saying Trump won't be the nominee. But reports of his inevitability are greatly exaggerated.

Experience

KEC0LbL.jpg

The worst years!

6h7uFWs.jpg

Prizes

R0cRAWJ.jpg

Imagine

4VyD9cq.jpg

Not a racist!

1SUc7d4.jpg

I feel your pain!

BdW8oPz.jpg

Fidel Sanders

rRcUq9Y.jpg