Monthly Archives: September 2014

Obamacare and ObamaMart Strike Again

Posted on by
1

In the continuing story of ObamaMart’s still incomplete (!) backend, the part of the Web site that takes the citizen’s input and sorts it, collates it with other government information, and then passes it on to other relevant parties—the health plan providers, for instance, and the IRS—there’s this:

Because of complicated connections between the new health care law and income taxes, the Department of Health and Human Services must send out millions of new tax forms next year.

The forms are called 1095-As, and list who in each household has health coverage, and how much the government paid each month to subsidize those insurance premiums. Nearly 5 million people have gotten subsidies through HealthCare.gov.

If the forms are delayed past their Jan 31 deadline, some people may have to wait to file tax returns—and collect their refunds.

A delay of a week or two may not sound like much, but many people depend on their tax refunds to plug holes in family finances.

That folks should better plan their withholding (where possible) and not extend Uncle Sugar a year-long interest-free loan is a separate story. Such planning is typical, and the folks who do this the most are the poorest among us—the very folks President Barack Obama and his ilk claim to be trying to help.

And there’s the coming collapse of employer-provided health plans.

Analysts predict that as ObamaCare takes hold, it will mean the end of employer-provided insurance….

The Wall Street research firm S&P IQ went even further, predicting 90% of such plans will disappear.

Now, I don’t see such an eventuality as necessarily a bad thing. Employer-supplied health plans should be what employer-supplied insurance plans used to be, when the practice began: a matter of employment compensation negotiation between employer and (prospective) employee. What interests me here is the hypocrisy of the thing.

President Barack Obama promised, repeatedly, that

you can keep your plan and your doctor, no matter what[.]

If you lose your employer-supplied health plan, you lose with that “your plan and your doctor” bit. Which, of course, Obama knew at the time he was making those promises. He even bragged about it to then Majority Leader Eric Cantor at the infamous health summit.

Also, when Presidential Candidate Barack Obama was debating Presidential Candidate John McCain in 2008, he decried McCain’s health insurance industry reform proposal as being destructive of employer-supplied health insurance.

[T]his would lead to the unraveling of the employer-based health care system. That, I don’t think, is the kind of change that we need.

Hmm….

The PRC’s Aggressiveness

Posted on by
Reply

…extends to reaching inside sovereign nations and trying to influence internal matters. And the People’s Republic of China is using its manufactured grudge (based on events of 70 years—three generations—ago) to manufacture justification for this…intrusion.

China’s government on Thursday called on Japan to “break clean with militarism” after Tokyo confirmed that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sent a note earlier this year to a ceremony honoring more than a thousand World War II-era war criminals praising their contributions.

Will the PRC also “break clean with militarism” and cease their grabs for the East and South China Seas?

Whether the dead honored at the Koyasan Buddhist temple are war criminals, as the post-WWII tribunal says they are, or they are not, as Japanese domestic law says (both then and now, in plain view of the PRC), is beside the point. This is an internal domestic matter, and the Chinese intrusion is not well brought-up behavior. They’ve missed a good opportunity to shut up.

Democracy People’s Republic of China Style

Posted on by
Reply

And democracy Hong Kong style.

The PRC’s view of elections in its satrapy is that only candidates acceptable to the Communist Party of China can stand for office in Hong Kong. Indeed, the Deputy Secretary General of the National People’s Congress’ Standing Committee, Li Fei, has said out loud that openly nominating candidates would create a “chaotic society.” He went further:

[R]ights come from laws, they don’t come from the sky. Many Hong Kong people have wasted a lot of time discussing things that are not appropriate and aren’t discussing things that are appropriate.

The contrast between freedom and tyranny could hardly be made more starkly clear.

Pursuant to Li’s remarks,

The…Standing Committee ruled that all candidates for chief executive must receive more than half of the votes from a special nominating body before going before voters.

And

[T]he 1,200-member nominating committee would select two or three candidates. After one is selected through universal suffrage, the chief executive-elect “will have to be appointed by the Central People’s Government.”

The good citizens of Hong Kong, though, have been holding massive demonstrations during the current run-up to the elections for governing positions there, demanding that actual democracy break out (as agreed by the PRC when the UK gave up Hong Kong to them at the end of the last century). These citizens demur from the PRC’s despotism.

Democracy, freedom, are messy and chaotic at times. That’s the price, and the strength, of free men working their way along a path of their own choosing, rather than suffering the order of government telling them what their path must be. The noisiness and seeming chaos are in the nature of every man being free, of every man having his say, of every man acting in his own time according to his own needs and wishes. It is a sign of a healthy society.

My suggestion, in the hubris associated with my position on the outside looking in: the citizenry should agree on a couple of candidates for the relevant posts—most particularly, for Chief Executive—and then, en masse, write those names in, and thereby elect one of them to each of those relevant posts. The citizens then should demand the PRC recognize that man as the Hong Kong Chief Executive and those men as the elects for those relevant posts.

Of course, such a prior arrangement is not different from what the Standing Committee has done, but as a one-time event to make an important statement and to make the PRC’s behavior internationally public, perhaps an exception can be made. After all, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is the citizens of Hong Kong’s right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In such an event, extraordinary measures become necessary.