Tag Archives: ethics

How Expensive is Obamacare?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s hugely expensive, but Progressive-Democratic Party politicians have been covering that up since Obamacare’s inception, when they pulled off in a purely party-line enactment, aided at the time by Party’s filibuster-proof Senate majority and then-Progressive-Democrat President Barack Obama’s naked purchase of a Congressman’s vote in House.

The Department of Health and Human Services released figures Friday that offered the first definitive view of enrollment after the withdrawal of enhanced government support for ACA plans, which ended at the start of this year. The shift boosted many ACA policyholders’ premium bills, in some cases by 100% or more.

Note: the premiums themselves didn’t increase by a penny. All that happened was that policy holders found themselves having to pay those premiums themselves, instead of getting taxpayer handouts in the form of those subsidies.

That’s how expensive Obamacare is and always has been. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” A classic Obama lie. He even lied about how wonderful his Obamacare was, and Progressive-Democratic Party politicians have been lying about that ever since.

You can’t even keep your Obamacare plan without other Americans paying for it with you.

Disdain for Patriotism

Posted on by
Reply

The Pennsylvania State government has decided not to participate in Great American State Fair on the National Mall. The claimed reason for this is State government’s inability to find a private enterprise that would sponsor a State booth on the Mall. Oh, and it costs too much for the State to put up a booth for those 16 days.

Costs too much? Progressive-Democrats, apparently, see patriotism solely as a dollars and cents matter of buying loyalty and allegiance.

The person who made this decision is the State’s Progressive-Democrat Secretary of the Department of Community and Economic Development, Rick Siger. The decision, however, also is that of his boss, the State’s Progressive-Democrat Governor, Josh Shapiro.

The decision by these two Progressive-Democrats, especially as it is based on such a flimsy excuse, illustrates the utter disdain Party has for America and for patriotism, even for mere displays celebrating our nation. “Patriots,” according to Party, are just a bunch of mercenary hirelings, and has nothing at all to do with love for and devotion to our great nation.

Confidential

Posted on by
Reply

A fifteen-year-old boy who sued YouTube, Alphabet‘s Google-owned company over YouTube‘s alleged causing [of] mental health harms to children via its also alleged by-design addictive nature, has settled his lawsuit rather than insisting on going to trial. The terms of the settlement are…confidential.

Of course, the boy’s lawyers are taking a victory lap.

YouTube‘s decision to resolve this case before having to face a jury speaks for itself.

On the other hand, José Castañeda, a Policy Communications Manager (III) at Google, speaking on behalf of YouTube and the settlement

said in a statement to FOX Business that the lawsuit had been amicably resolved.

Naturally, the lawyers for both sides would paint the outcome as favorable for their own client. The losers in such an outcome, though, are the public, other children in the boy’s claimed strait, and the boy himself.

By concealing the outcome, it’s impossible for the public—those other children, especially—to know whether YouTube is being suitably punished or the boy’s beef is bogus. That’s all carefully hidden. The concealment reduces a suit and the associated publicity to nothing more than virtue-signaling.

I’m spring-loaded against keeping settlements of civil lawsuits, which themselves are public affairs, hidden away from the public. If the plaintiff(s) aren’t confident of the legitimacy of their plaint, they ought not bring the case in the first place. If they are confident, they should push the pace and go to trial.

That’s the Point

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that one of New York City’s Progressive-Democrat Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s goal was a plethora of city government-run grocery stores to sell groceries at “affordable prices”—which, for Mamdani, meant “cheaper than what existing grocery stores were selling.” He could mean only that, else he’d be conceding that those prices already were affordable.

The outcome of such a move is laid out in the subheadline:

His socialist supermarkets could put New York’s little grocers out of business.

That’s the point.

Like any good socialist, Mamdani wants government to control the producers. Especially if it’s the particular socialist’s government. Getting rid of the little businesses demonstrates to the larger stores and the chains—whose individual stores generally are franchises run by moms and pops or collections of them run by small- or mid-sized businesses—that they’d better kowtow to the socialist government or leave. In either case, that would increase government’s control over the remains.

Contradiction in Terms

Posted on by
Reply

The lede lays it out.

State financial aid continues to expand within higher education, allowing money to go to eligible illegal immigrant students.

That’s an obvious oxymoron, or it should be. Leave aside the plain fact that folks in the US illegally are not “migrants”—those are folks who entered (and remain) our nation legally. These folks are illegal aliens.

The contradiction is magnified by this bit:

Currently, around 21 states and the District of Columbia offer in-state tuition eligibility to certain illegal immigrant students, and 18 states and DC provide access to state financial aid programs, according to Higher Ed immigration.
For example, at a University of California school, the base in-state tuition is roughly $15,000 annually. For nonresidents, the base tuition is over $31,000, which means eligible illegal immigrants are essentially receiving $16,000 a year in aid.

That understates the case: these illegal aliens (not migrants or immigrants) are receiving $31,000 per year in aid, since they are, or should be, by dint of their illegal status not at all eligible for any of this taxpayer largesse.

Illegal aliens should be eligible for none of our welfare or other financial assistance beyond the payments they’re offered for leaving voluntarily, payments consisting both of a lump sum cash payment and he preservation of a one-time ability to come back, this time doing so legally and above board.