Obamacare providers got screwed, and are too big to fail..

So at the time when the collectivists held all 3 branches of our government , and were telling us they had to pass Obamacare for us to see what it was about, many of us, when asked, pointed out that the vilified insurance industry went along with this nonsense because they bought the campaign of lies that these crooks were selling. Somehow those that had to know better accepted the contention that Obamacare would actually result in cost reductions, and thus by extension, bigger profits for them. Who cares if it was blatantly obvious that what this democrat shit sandwich would really do was incentivize primarily the people most likely to drive costs through the roof, while those that didn’t need it, despite the penalties, would stay away? well the morons in the health insurance industry should have cared, but they, like so many others, were basically fooled by a false narrative.

As anyone that understood human nature could point out, in a country where medical professionals can’t turn away anyone that needs urgent care, why would someone very unlikely to need anything but urgent care, buy damned health insurance? And why would they expect that someone that was previously unable to get insurance due to something that was going to cost a fortune not sign up for free shit? Fast forward 6 years. Obamacare now has clearly shown us that nothing that was promised would actually come to pass, and that we all would pay more for crappier service. The health insurance industry has been forced to jack rates continuously to cover their massive shortfalls, and now, we have these companies looking for a tax payer subsidy to cover the ass rape they have experienced thanks to a bad law:

Insurers helped cheerlead the creation of Obamacare, with plenty of encouragement – and pressure – from Democrats and the Obama administration. As long as the Affordable Care Act included an individual mandate that forced Americans to buy its product, insurers offered political cover for the government takeover of the individual-plan marketplaces. With the prospect of tens of millions of new customers forced into the market for comprehensive health-insurance plans, whether they needed that coverage or not, underwriters saw potential for a massive windfall of profits.

Six years later, those dreams have failed to materialize. Now some insurers want taxpayers to provide them the profits to which they feel entitled — not through superior products and services, but through lawsuits.

Earlier this month, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina joined a growing list of insurers suing the Department of Health and Human Services for more subsidies from the risk-corridor program. Congress set up the program to indemnify insurers who took losses in the first three years of Obamacare with funds generated from taxes on “excess profits” from some insurers. The point of the program was to allow insurers to use the first few years to grasp the utilization cycle and to scale premiums accordingly.

As with most of the ACA’s plans, this soon went awry. Utilization rates went off the charts, in large part because younger and healthier consumers balked at buying comprehensive coverage with deductibles so high as to guarantee that they would see no benefit from them. The predicted large windfall from “excess profit” taxes never materialized, but the losses requiring indemnification went far beyond expectations.

In response, HHS started shifting funds appropriated by Congress to the risk-corridor program, which would have resulted in an almost-unlimited bailout of the insurers. Senator Marco Rubio led a fight in Congress to bar use of any appropriated funds for risk-corridor subsidies, which the White House was forced to accept as part of a budget deal. As a result, HHS can only divvy up the revenues from taxes received through the ACA, and that leaves insurers holding the bag.

They now are suing HHS to recoup the promised subsidies, but HHS has its hands tied, and courts are highly unlikely to have authority to force Congress to appropriate more funds. In fact, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services formally responded by telling insurers that they have no requirement to offer payment until the fall of 2017, at the end of the risk-corridor program.

I say fuck them both. HHS is a criminal entity as far as I am concerned, far worse than anything else out there in the real world. But these insurance companies should feel the pain. After all, they were stupid enough to buy into another massive campaign of lies from the marxists and their promises to insulate these companies if the not only went along but cheerlead for the marxists, from the consequences of bad economic policy that then also ignored human nature (what else that caused us all some huge pain recently does this sound exactly like, huh?). Wishful thinking is not enough, as this clearly points out:

That response highlights the existential issue for both insurers and Obamacare. The volatility and risk was supposed to have receded by now. After three full years of utilization and risk-pool management, ACA advocates insisted that the markets would stabilize, and premiums would come under control. Instead, premiums look set for another round of big hikes for the fourth year of the program.

Get used to this people. There are no free lunches. Someone pays, and while the collectivists, but especially one of the politicians, would like you to be dumb enough to believe their promise it will be someone else, the fact is that you will always pay in one form or another, unless you are one of them, that is. Greedy assholes in the insurance industries bought the bullshit the left sold when they should have known better, and now they are up the creek without a paddle and looking for someone else to pay. Hence the following news:

Consumers seeking to comply with the individual mandate will see premiums increase on some plans from large insurers by as much as 30 percent in Oregon, 32 percent in New Mexico, 38 percent in Pennsylvania, and 65 percent in Georgia.

Yup, we will all pay. Perverse incentives will produce perverse results, but hey, collectivists will tell you the right people pushing the right way will finally make that happen.

California’s White Elephant, The Saga Continues

I’ve written several times about California’s massive high-speed rail boondoggle. This project, which supposedly will allow travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in three hours (or about twice the time it takes to fly), has been praised to the skies by liberals and condemned by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. It is massively overbudget, massively behind schedule, has not secured all of its funding and doesn’t even have most of the land it needs to build.

Oh, it gets worse:

The total construction cost estimate has now more than doubled to $68 billion from the original $33 billion, despite trims in the routes planned. The first, easiest-to-build, segment of the system — the “train to nowhere” through a relatively empty stretch of the Central Valley — is running at least four years behind schedule and still hasn’t acquired all the needed land. Predicted ticket prices to travel from LA to the Bay have shot from $50 to more than $80. State funding is running short. Last month’s cap-and-trade auction for greenhouse gases, expected to provide $150 million for the train, yielded a mere $2.5 million. And no investors are lining up to fill the $43 billion construction-budget gap.

Now, courtesy of Los Angeles Times reporter Ralph Vartabedian, comes yet another damning revelation: When the Spanish construction company Ferrovial submitted its winning bid for a 22-mile segment, the proposal included a clear and inconvenient warning: “More than likely, the California high speed rail will require large government subsidies for years to come.” Ferrovial reviewed 111 similar systems around the world and found only three that cover their operating costs.

The truly damning revelation, however, isn’t just that Ferrovial’s research flatly contradicts the California authority. It’s that the company’s warning on subsidies disappeared from the version of the bid posted on the state’s website. The Times obtained a copy of the full document on a data disk under a public records act request.

In short, the government of California has gone from relying on insanely optimistic estimates of the light rail program (they project 117 million riders a year, approximately 40 times the ridership of Acela) to editing studies to make sure the claim that it’s going to work. And at least few outlets are now admitting that the program is in serious trouble but are saying it’s worth it because reasons.

And you know what? They have a point. Because as far as the Democrats are concerned, none of this is a problem. The California high speed rail program is fulfilling all of its objectives:

  • It’s spending lots of money on “infrastructure” and “jobs”.
  • It provides a convenient piece of virtue signaling so that supporters can prove how much they care about the environment.
  • It’s spendings lots of money.
  • If it ever actually gets built, they’ll be able to point to it and say, “we built his thing!”
  • It’s spending lots of money.

A bottomless money pit that shows how morally superior Democrats are too Republicans? We’ll take two please. Or maybe one for the price of ten.

Well, that’s because it is all lies you tools!

WaPo has a laughable article titled Hillary Clinton’s email story continues to get harder and harder to believe where they actually contort themselves into pretzels trying to avoid saying the obvious: She is a liar and lying about the fact she broke the law and is trying to stall the required prosecution and incarceration. From the article:

On Monday night, the Associated Press published a piece noting the release of an additional 165 pages of emails Hillary Clinton sent from her private email address while serving as secretary of state. These were emails that had never been previously released and only were made public because of a court order in response to a request from a conservative group.

And yet again, the emails poke holes in Clinton’s initial explanation for why she decided to exclusively use a private email server for her electronic correspondence while serving as the nation’s top diplomat.

Let’s start with this from the AP story: “The emails were not among the 55,000 pages of work-related messages that Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence.”

Remember that Clinton and a small group of people working for her reviewed all of the emails she sent from her private server and made the decision about what was solely personal and what was work-related. She handed over the work-related email and permanently deleted those that she and her team decided were purely personal. She wound up deleting more emails than she turned over to State.

The latest batch of emails suggest that Clinton’s filter to decide between the personal and the professional was far from foolproof. That these emails never saw the light of day before Monday — or before a conservative legal advocacy group petitioned for their release — opens up the possibility that there are plenty more like them that Clinton chose to delete but shouldn’t have. And it provides more fodder for the Republican argument that Clinton appointing herself as judge, jury and executioner for her emails was, at best, a very, very bad decision and, at worst, something more nefarious than just bad judgment.

Yeah, see the issue here is the language being used. Chizilla seems to go out of his way to make this something passive instead of pointing out that this was done, and done on purpose to hide what these scumbags were doing, which obviously leads one to the only actual and accurate conclusion, that Hillary and practically everyone else in the Obama administration related to this have been lying their asses off. I find it insulting when the democrat agents with bylines in the MSM all go out of their way to make Hillary innocent in this case, even going so far as presenting her as some technophobe and old doggering fool.

I guess saying she is just an old grandma and not the shyster she is seems to make the left feel they have an out, but as a voter, I wouldn’t be inclined to cast mine for someone that seems to, from the media’s attempts to hide her criminal activity, be suffering from dementia. She could just press that button and nuke somewhere in Arkansas where one of Bill’s ex-mistresses is hiding, or Chicago to get the Obamas, in a fit of anger.

I ask again, do you think a republican candidate – other than Trump whom seems to be the LSM’s kryptonite – get away with this shit? If you can answer honestly, you know how insulting it is to others that actually followed the law or were hammered for breaking or appearing to break it by this administration.

Hillary needs to be wearing orange or stripped jumpsuits and pursue a career making license plates. That would be justice in this case. And she needs to be joined by people like Lerner whom now clearly is in contempt of congress and a criminal.

The Bregret Nonsense

The indispensable Charles Cooke deals a shattering blow to the media’s desperate attempts to rewrite the Brexit vote result and pretend that there is a huge wave of regret engulfing Leave voters. The whole thing is worth your time — he notes how bogus the Google trends and petition stories are — but he concludes with this:

One of the great failings of the American media class – both in this case, and more broadly — is its refusal to accept that national sovereignty is just as important to people as is material wealth, and that the average person’s objections to unrestricted immigration are rooted in quotidian concerns rather than racism. The Voxes and the Wonkblogs of the world may well be hooked on questions such as, “If the French parliament handed regulatory control over to the Peruvians, what would happen to exports?” – but most people are not, and, if given a choice between being ruled from afar by self-professed experts or retaining more control over their lives, they will usually plump for the latter. At the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788, Patrick Henry instructed the electors, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.” Clearly, a considerable number of Brits still agree.

This is a growing problem with supposed fact-based journalism as well as large parts of economics and sociology. They tend to see issues in very narrow academic terms and don’t even consider that some people might have values behind the purely utilitarian. Vox, in particular, is one of the absolute worst at this. In the recent past, they have advocating raising the smoking age to 21, keeping the drinking age high, restricting sugar and salt in our food, banning guns and all other manner of Nanny State nonsense. And their reasoning is entirely, “Liberal Think Tank X says policy Y will save Z lives per year.”

Even if the think tanks were right — and they frequently aren’t — that entirely misses the point. People value freedom. They value accountability. They value a government that both listens to them when they want it to and leaves them alone when they want it to. We are not numbers in a spreadsheet. This is not SimCity. We don’t win point based on our lifespans or healthcare expenditures. People want and deserve the freedom to make trade-offs. The pleasure of drinking in exchange for poorer health. The freedom to smoke in exchange for shorter life spans. The freedom to buy guns at the risk of being shot. And yes, the ability to be governed by your fellow Brits in exchange for slightly less wealth (most of which would go to the elites anyway, not to the masses).

It is vital to the national political conversation that we engage people on their own terms; that we address the arguments they are making rather than the arguments we assign to them. The “smug style of liberalism”, as Vox itself once called it, is an utter failure to do so.

Another example: yesterday, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark abortion ruling striking down Texas’ regulations on abortion clinics as too restrictive. As is their want, the Left responded to yet another massive victory in the Culture War with anger and outrage that anyone dared disagree with them. And over and over, we heard that this was about controlling women’s sexuality and punishing women for unapproved sex. Maybe that’s a part of this. But you’re not going to get anywhere with that besides making yourself feel superior to those awful awful cave-man pro-Lifers. It’s much more productive addressing the tens of millions of people (including tens of millions of women) who see abortion as the extinguishing of a human life and saw the Kermit Gosnell horror as an indication that abortion clinics were dangerously under-regulated. They might be wrong. But you have to engage them on the issue they care about, not the issue you wish they cared about.

I’m as guilty of anyone of talking past the arguments my political opponents are making. But the problem has become very acute with the Left in recent years. And the Brexit is simply the latest distillation of this.

If you didn’t know that it was pretend, then stuff like this should clarify it

Never forget that the left is about tyranny. Sure they love to pretend to like democracy, but that is when things go their way. As soon as that doesn’t happen, then you get stuff like this (which was previously titled like this):

Since British voters elected on Thursday to leave the European Union, signs have quickly emerged of the flaws in holding a referendum on such a messy, massive, far-reaching decision.

Politicians responsible for explaining what’s at stake have admitted they may have fudged some of the consequences. Nigel Farage, leader of the U.K. Independence Party, acknowledged Friday merely an hour after the election was called that one of the Leave campaign’s key promises to voters was inaccurate. Brexit backers pledged that money the U.K. currently sends to the E.U. — supposedly £350 million ($462 million) a week — would go to the country’s national health system instead. Former London mayor Boris Johnson even drove around Britain in a bus blaring that message.

On Friday, Farage called that claim a “mistake.” (Kudos to the incredulous TV reporter who then followed up: “Do you think there are other things people will wake up this morning and find out aren’t going to happen as a result of voting this way?”)

Oh, the article goes on to pretend these scumbag tyrannical leftists have a good reason to say that in general the unwashed masses that these masters are sure are not as smart as they are (reference here, shouldn’t be allowed to make choices the globalist leftist movement doesn’t like, but that’s bullshit. Most of the negative consequences we are seeing to this exit vote are simply retaliatory measures by pissed nanny staters that want to punish the plebes for daring to defy their aristocracy’s hold on power.

The grand message here by the political aristocracy and their scumbag lackeys in the media is that these plebes that voted “No” know not what’s better for them, unlike the political globalist masters. You fucking inbred morons are motivated by the usual nefarious reasons – racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and so on – while they, the enlightened masters, see beyond all that. The fact that the voters point out they basically decided these masters had gotten too corrupt and felt no accountability to the people they represented is just pap. Democracy is doing what the marxist-globalist left wants. Don’t take my word for it:

All of this was, perhaps, predictable, as some political scientists and historians have warned that a simple yes-or-no public referendum can be a terrible way to make a decision with such complex repercussions. The process looks like direct democracy in its purest form, and it was celebrated as such by many Leave campaigners after the vote. But David A. Bell, a Princeton historian writing in The New Republic four years ago as Greece was preparing for a referendum on its bailout, argues that the result of referendums is much more often anti-democratic.

Methinks these people don’t realize the actual meaning of what the word democracy means. It simply is the rule of the masses, the decision they make being good or not according to whomever, having no impact on that choice. Democracy can be just as tyrannical as anything else, but never as tyrannical as what a ruling class that holds disdain for the people it rules and simply makes decisions that primarily benefit that ruling class way too often at the expense of the masses, which is why the forefathers of the US opted for a Representative Republic. Making a choice that the marxist-globalist left dislikes, for whatever reason and irrespective of whatever justification that the anyone would want to present as justification for claiming otherwise, doesn’t make that vote undemocratic as these mouth pieces of the tyrannical leftist cabal want you to believe. If they had “miscounted” the vote, like they did or continue to do in the greatest bastions of practical implementations of the systems of government favored by the left, or just outright disregarded the outcome of such a vote, which is exactly what I see the anti-brexit types are planning to do, then we would have something that is undemocratic.

The whole feel of this idiotic article is that the people that voted against what their masters and betters want, just don’t know what’s good for them. And the orchestrated campaign to cause as much pain as possible to all, the intended consequence being to make sure that nobody does anything like this again, as well as the call for a do-over are really what one could potentially label undemocratic. Basically we have another famous “Too big to fail” moment, like we had back in 2008, when the wholly rotten and totally broken US homeownership lending industry regulated to push perverse incentives that defied the laws of economics and human nature, going on here too. Do not defy the masters in Brussels and their plans, or else.

The globalists have corrupted the idea of a globalized planet brought together by economic and human interest by creating bloated beasts that rob the people of their freedoms and simply serve to enrich the political masters and the few they allow to come along, and are screwing us all over. People shouldn’t be deciding things simply on how much free shit the masters promise them, always shit taken from others, and those that are being fleeced shouldn’t be villainized when they point out that their masters have not just failed them, but are ripping them off and fucking them over. Have no doubt that this vote, despite of the stories being told now, was one to protest the disconnected masters and the fact that they no longer even care to pretend they hold the very people they are supposed to be serving in contempt. And this rebellion against their will and direction, by what these masters see as uneducated morons that are beneath them, is what pisses these scumbags in power the most.