Daily Archives: 7 November 2013

Rule By Law

Posted on by
Reply

This time using the excuse of AGW to drive the fiat governance.

President Barack Obama has issued another of his diktats Executive Orders, this time placing the Executive Branch squarely in charge of “responses” to “climate change” and wholly cutting the people’s representatives, our Congress, out of the discussion.  Never mind that human impact on climate change has yet to be demonstrated—or even hinted at very strongly.  His EO forms a task force to advise the Federal government of how to respond to climate change impacts.

Of course, it’s also an Obama-esque bipartisan group:

The task force includes governors of seven states—all Democrats—and the Republican governor of Guam, a US territory.  Fourteen mayors and two other local leaders also will serve on the task force.

All but three of those appointed are Democrats.

Obama claimed, in his accompanying White House statement,

…that even as the United States acts to curb carbon pollution, officials also need to improve how states and communities respond to extreme weather events like last year’s Superstorm Sandy.  Building codes must be updated to address climate impacts and infrastructure needs to be made more resilient.

This is just more costs inflicted by Feds on states and consumers—ostensibly to guard against climate “change,” but more to increase Federal power and intrusion into our business and private lives.

There’s more:

A possible mandate to bring sweeping new changes to land use and resource policies.

Just like the EPA’s attempts to regulate rain water runoff as a pollutant and to regulate water puddles in people’s backyards.

And

More control and refocus of climate change data….

Which will include a drive to control the release of those data and how they’re being used by the Federal government—just like this administration is doing with Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS targeting, Obamacare software, etc.

So I ask: who will guard us from government’s rule by law at the expense of rule of law?  And a follow up: who will protect us from the mendacity of false climate panic-mongering?

Losing Insurance vs Gaining Insurance

Posted on by
Reply

CBS News has been busily gathering hard numbers on this—at least on the losing side, since President Barack Obama and his HHS Secretary are too terrified to release any gaining numbers.

CBS’ Jan Crawford said that CBS News has checked with actual insurance companies; she’s found that in four states alone, the numbers are huge—in just the first few weeks of the ObamaMart rollout:

California: 279,000 had their insurance policies cancelled out from under them

Michigan: 140,000

Florida: 300,000

New Jersey: 800,000

Adding in the cats and dogs, and 2 million Americans have had their insurance policies cancelled, and the number is rising[Period]

This compares, again with data gleaned from insurance companies, and unrefuted by the Obama administration, with 6 folks who signed up on the first day and some 250—total—who’d signed up through the third day after ObamaMart’s rollout.

CBS also takes care to note that this is driven by the Obamacare law, not by Evil Insurance:

Obamacare forces them to drop many of their plans that don’t meet the law’s 10 minimum standards, including maternity care, emergency visits, mental health treatment, and even pediatric dental care.

Because a man needs maternity care, and an empty-nest couple needs that pediatric dental care.

Also,

That means consumers have to sign on to new plans even if they don’t want or need the more generous coverage.  Industry experts say about half the people getting the letters will pay more—and half will pay less, thanks to taxpayer subsidies.

The subsidies also mean that those who are paying more are paying even more more in order to pay those subsidies.  Those subsidies, after all, are funded both by Obamacare taxes and by artificially inflated premiums against which those subsidies are balanced.  Yes, even those who get the subsidies “need” them because of those artificially inflated premiums.

Hmm….