“ObamaCare co-architect Jonathan Gruber — who infamously said “the stupidity of the American voter” helped get the measure to become law — now blames Trump for rising premium costs. “Whose fault is this?” Gruber asked on “Fox News Sunday.”“Since President Trump has been elected…premiums are going up and insurers are exiting.”
Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor, argued that perceived rising premium costs are really a one-time increase in 2016 to cover “massively underpriced” policies for the first two years of the 2010 law…”
And if you believe that, Gruber continues to assure you if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan…along with your doctor!
Listen as this liar persists in his well-practiced prevarication, deception and dissimulation back in January of this year:
Note how every flaw Carlson identifies, every legitimate, common sense objection he makes, is dismissed by the economist-turned-healthcare-expert as a minor point, thus not worth overturning Obamacare in its entirety. What Tucker should have asked the learned author of the Unaffordable Care Act is at what point do the sum of the parts become greater than the whole?
As for Gruber’s claim 20 million people benefited from Obamacare, the actual numbers say otherwise:
“So, more than half of the reduction in the number of people who are uninsured is coming from an old fashioned increase in the number of people being covered in employer health plans. You will recall that the Obamacare employer mandate was delayed during 2014 so we can hardly credit the big employer gains to that part of Obamacare. Nor, is there much evidence that the individual mandate has had a big impact on enrollment–few people signed up by the special tax deadline extension. I will suggest those employer coverage gains could just as easily have more to do with a recovering economy and employment improvement.
As Rand points out, the Obamacare insurance exchange enrollment is tepid at best—accounting for only a gain in the number of insured of 4.1 million people…”
Also, we’re personally in a position to refute Gruber’s claim only the rich and healthy suffered as a result of a policy intended from the start to bring down the greatest health system on the planet. Having been denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition, we were able to obtain insurance for our wife and youngest son through MHIP, the Maryland state high-risk program, for $562/month.
Thanks to Dr. Gruber, MHIP was phased out in 2014, and not only have our monthly premiums to Blue Cross/Blue Shield almost quadrupled to $2,000/month for just TLJ and ourselves, but our deductible has tripled and our maximum annual out-of-pocket has quintupled!
So here’s to you, Jon…
You’re officially added to the list of lying Liberals whose names we look forward to seeing headlining an obituary.
Next up, in what was clearly the result of inherent racism on the part of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch…
After all, given the MSM’s long-established standards, there’s only one possible explanation:
Here’s wishing Stacy Washington all the best…though we somehow doubt she’ll have trouble bettering her former position.
Speaking of Liberal double standards (as if they’re possessed of any other kind!), writing at The Weekly Standard, St. John’s law professor Marc DeGirolami relates the dramatic rise in…
“Something ugly is happening to the First Amendment. It is being contorted to enable judges to protest Donald Trump’s presidency. The perennial impulse of judges to manipulate the law to achieve morally and politically desirable ends has only been exacerbated by the felt necessity to “resist” Trump. The result: Legal tests concerning the freedoms of speech and religion that in some cases were already highly dubious are being further deformed and twisted.
Welcome to the rise of fake law. Just as fake news spreads ideologically motivated misinformation with a newsy veneer, fake law brings us judicial posturing, virtue signaling, and opinionating masquerading as jurisprudence.And just as fake news augurs the end of authoritative reporting, fake law portends the diminution of law’s legitimacy and the warping of judges’ self-understanding of their constitutional role.
Those who try to police the relentlessly transformational projects of constitutional progressives had much to dread from the Obama administration, an inveterate ally of the legal left that did what it could to graft the aspirations of progressives onto the Constitution. But Trump’s presidency may be even worse, because too many judges now feel called to “resist” Trump and all his works—no matter the cost to the law’s authority and to the integrity of the judicial role.
…A large part of the blame for this abomination falls on the Supreme Court.It was only a matter of time before the hollowness of its favored establishment clause test—which focuses on impure motivations, perceived slights, and the hurt feelings of political exclusion—would be exposed in the patently unreasonable use of irrelevant and illimitable “context.” The reasonable observer, it seems, is not the judge who faithfully applies the law but the politically motivated judge who swells the scope of the establishment clause and wears his contempt for the president like a medal.
Trump, too, is responsible. His incompetence, his pugnacity, his reliably ill-advised policies, and his boorishness combine to cause his political adversaries to see all shades of red in whatever he does. Enraged legal academics have manufactured grotesque theories about the emoluments clause, the Electoral College, and the establishment clause just to bring him down.
As more courts succumb to similar Trump-hatred in the exercise of their constitutional duties, the damage to the law’s legitimacy and to the institution of the judiciary will only intensify. As with fake news, it is one of the pathologies of fake law that we are likely to forget what real law looks like. Soon enough, we won’t even know the difference.“
Thus do Dimocrats destroy yet another once-respected branch of government.
Since we’re on the subject of Progressives’ purposeful depravation of the underpinnings of the Founders’ Republic, as HeatStreet informs us…
“The mayor of Seattle has altered the rules of his proposed soda tax — which would fund education for minorities – to include diet drinks because affluent white people tend to consume them more.
Mayor Ed Murray of the staunchly liberal Seattle city originally proposed the soda tax during his state of the city address in February. Under his initial plan, distributors of sugary drinks would have to pay 2 cents per ounce. It would cover sodas such as Coke and Pepsi, energy drinks like Red Bull, fruit drinks, sweetened teas and bottled coffees such as those sold by Starbucks.
The Mayor claimed the tax would bring $16 million in revenue that would be spent on education programs aimed at reducing disparities between the city’s white students and students of color. But the mayor has updated the plan after the staff of the mayor’s office told him that the tax would actually disproportionately fall on poor minorities, who have higher rates of soda consumption than white residents.
“Like…meth for sex with an underage boy is illegal? Seriously?!?”
The proposed Seattle soda tax has run into considerable opposition. (Primarily from minorities!)
Murray changed the bill, lowering the levy to 1.75 cents per ounce and included diet drinks because they are by favored by affluent white city residents, despite the fact that most diet drinks have no calories and therefore don’t contribute to obesity.
According to Reason, taxing diet drinks has become “an issue of equality” to the mayor because they more likely to be consumed by “upper middle class white people” and therefore must be taxed as a way to fight “white privileged institutionalized racism.”
The white privilege tax may be a distraction for Murray, who’s facing accusations from four men that he paid for sex and sexually abused them in the 1980s when they were teen boys. A high profile lawsuit from one of the men filed last month claims that Murray “raped and molested him” over several years, beginning in 1986 when the man was a 15-year-old high-school dropout. Murray has denied the accusations.“
Yeah,…and Nixon wasn’t a crook…we could read Bush-41’s lips…Clinton didn’t have sex with “that woman”…and the Cambridge police acted stupidly. As for Benghazi, what’s the difference?
It just didn’t matter!
Yeah, that’s the ticket:
Which brings us , appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Finally, we’ll call it a day with one more titillating tale torn from the pages of The Crime Blotter, courtesy of Bill Meisen and a tortured soul on Sardinia:
“A man has been accused of murdering his next-door neighbor after claiming she trained her parrot to insult him.
…Eugenio Fatone, the arresting officer, told reporters Frailis was “very cold, very calm and full of rage”. Investigators say he was driven to kill Mrs Contu by a parrot which she trained to hurl insults whenever he passed the bird, L’Unione Sarda reports.
According to investigators, unemployed Frailis spent most of his time playing violent video games in his home where he could hear the bird’s taunts. Magistrate Paolo De Angelis said: “Listening to the parrot all day, it became an obsession for him. Even the worst parrot in the world doesn’t justify this.I don’t exclude mental problems…”
Ya THINK?!? Otherwise, as Mr. Meisen noted, why not just kill the abusive bird?!?
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.