From Around the Blogroll

Donald Douglas referenced this story from the San José Mercury News, which had this as the money line:

“Of course, I want people to have health care,” (Cindy) Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

A lot more at the link. The story references the winners and losers from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Yes, there are absolutely some winners, mainly people who had expensive insurance because they had chronic health problems, but there are many losers as well, people who had much more moderately priced insurance plans, who must now pay a lot more, because their insurance plans must now cover things that they didn’t choose to have covered in the past, and because the insurance companies must now spread the costs of care for previously uninsurable people, whom they must now cover at no additional cost, over the mass of people who don’t have such conditions.

One of the lessons liberal economists — a term which is almost an oxymoron — never seem to have learned is that nothing is free: for a person to receive something, someone must pay for it. Under the PP&ACA, the people who are getting things they didn’t have before are having those things paid for by other people.

Phineas, writing on Sister Toldjah, asks if You want to know why Obamacare will collapse? Then he tells you.

From The Pirate’s Cove:

Bummer: D.C. Climate Will Hit Tipping Point In 2047
By William Teach October 10, 2013 – 11:03 am

Are you ready for yet another climate tipping point article fable?

(Washington Post) Locations around the globe will soon reach climatic tipping points, with some in tropical regions — home to most of the world’s biodiversity — feeling the first impacts of unprecedented eras of elevated temperatures as soon as seven years from now, according to a study released Wednesday.

On average, locations worldwide will leave behind the climates that have existed from the middle of the 19th century through the beginning of the 21st century by 2047 if no progress is made in curbing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, said researchers at the University of Hawaii at Manoa who sought to project the timing of that event for 54,000 locations.

More at the link, but Mr Teach noted that we’ve heard these projections before, and they haven’t exactly panned out.

From Karen, the Lonely Conservative:

Call The Waaaaambulance, Furloughed Federal Workers Are Bored
by  •  •

Somebody call a waaaaambulance! Some furloughed federal workers are bored during their paid vacation. One even “resorted” to cleaning out her own garage, the poor dear.

More at the link.

In every previous shutdown, the furloughed workers have received back pay for the days they were off. Perhaps the feds will simply count these days as the regular furlough days caused by that horrible, draconian, absolutely unlivable sequester we have somehow, miraculously, managed to survive . . . though just barely, I’m sure.

From Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion:

Healthcare.gov — The bad, the bad, and the ugly
Posted by    Thursday, October 10, 2013 at 6:23pm

Remember, we had to pass the law to find out what was in it.

I’ve been covering the ongoing issues with the Obamacare website in the days since its glitch-filled launch, which you can read here, here and here.  From day one, the Obama administration has spun the problems as a good thing, blaming all the site’s technical misfires entirely on high traffic volume – demand that it claims was beyond its expectations.

As I’ve written in all of my posts on the subject, I’ve been highly skeptical of that claim and have provided numerous citations, as well as some of my own commentary, to support such skepticism.  I ended one of those posts by writing, “While some media outlets have focused on the long wait times, very few are actually breaking down the glitches and testing the administration’s claims that volume is solely to blame.”

Well, that has certainly changed since I wrote it.

More at the link.

From Political Realities:

Liberalism vs. Conservatism – What Difference Does It Make?
By LD Jackson

There is a great divide in America. On one side, you have liberalism, voiced by a group of progressive Democrats that believe in greater government control of almost every aspect of our daily lives. On the other, there is conservatism. More and more, conservatism is being voiced by the people who lean more to the libertarian side of the political spectrum. Many of us want nothing more than to be simply left alone. We do not desire the government to be in our homes or in our lives and we see much of the federal government as an unneeded and unwanted intrusion into our personal lives. The differences between the two sides of this divide could be no greater. My question is this. To borrow the words from Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make, as long as we are all still Americans? My answer to that question may also be simple, but I would contend that it makes a great deal of difference in the direction America is going.

Liberalism vs. Conservatism: Stop and think about this for a moment. Have you ever seen a time when so many things you do are controlled by the federal government? I was talking to a gentleman yesterday about his car. He had a tire pressure monitor (TPMS) light on because the sensor itself was bad. He didn’t want to spend the money to fix the problem and voiced this question. He wanted to know why the vehicles were required to have the TPMS systems. I informed him it was because of federal regulations and he wanted to know what business it was of the federal government if his car had the system or not. He went on to mention numerous items that the federal government requires, but in reality were none of their business.

The sentiment expressed by this gentleman is the same sentiment I see in action all across the area where I live and work. There is a battle going on that we may or may not be aware of. Most of us want nothing to do with the federal government. We desire to go back to the foundations laid down by the Founding Fathers. The federal government is supposed to be small and not so strong. They are supposed to be focused on national defense and other enumerated powers. Instead, we find them creeping into every aspect of our daily lives. We are told what safety systems our vehicles will have, what kind of light bulbs our houses will have, what kind of food we should eat, etc. This list could go on for a few paragraphs.

Those few more paragraphs can be found at the original. As for me, I found the illustration pretty profound, because it summarizes modern liberalism perfectly. Of course, it’s all for our own good, don’t you know?

Jeff Goldstein noted that one of the Framers anticipated the possibility of a government shutdown:

“James Madison Anticipates the Possibility of Government Shutdown–and Predicts that the House of Representatives Can and Should Prevail”
– Which is one reason why writers in Slate, Salon, the WaPo, the NYT, and elsewhere, have started pushing the meme that the “shutdown” is the “Constitution’s fault.”  In fact, one writer blamed James Madison particularly, citing as a flaw what he here notes in Federalist 58:

The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

Much more at the link. But it seems that our 4th President, one much wiser than our 44th, was very much a supporter of the concept that Parliament had the power to stop the excesses of the King by denying him the revenues to act beyond their consent. It’s a slightly different situation with the shutdown and the debt ceiling here, but the concept is the same.

Dejah Thoris from the film John Carter.

On the Victory Girls, Dejah Thoris writes about feminism.

Feminism’s ultimate lie is that you have to be like man to be more like a woman. I fail to understand how this is even possible. I thought we were supposed to still be women? We have certainly made great strides in our liberation. We have control of our bodies (except Sandra Fluke, who needs the patriarchal, male dominated government to stay out of her uterus, but pay for her birth control), we hold political office (although that even leads me to believe that some women should have stayed home), we run corporations, we serve and lead in the military (but in order to be fair, evidently we are going to have to sign up for the draft and be subjected to serving in the Infantry).

But the most important thing we women do is teach our sons how to interact with the women in their lives, and what is expected of them by us. The next most important thing we do is teach the young women in our lives the importance of men in their own lives and how to expect to be treated by them.

But an ideology that hates and marginalizes men can’t be reasonably expected to teach them about the importance and necessity of men, and an ideology that fails to recognize the inherent differences between men and women, despite the massive amount of evidence in this regard, is doomed to failure. In today’s society, the constant marginalization of men has created a backlash, among both men and women about our roles.

More at the link.

Finally, Robert Stacey Stacy McCain asks:

What happened to the Democrat Party? When and how did the psychological impulses of radical alienation seize control of a large segment of our society, infusing them with the anti-religious, anti-family, anti-capitalist, anti-American spirit that dominates the souls of Democrats today?

More at the link. But it wasn’t so very long ago that we had a Democratic Party which represented the working man rather than the non-working welfare leech, that represented freedom and individual liberty and opposed communism, and which said that all men are created equal, and ought to be treated equally by their government, regardless of the color of their skin. It was a Democratic Party of which America could be proud. I don’t know where that Democratic Party went, but it sure isn’t around here anymore.

That’s it for this week!

Comments are closed.