Part of ObamaCare was the PCIP, the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. John Lott notes that, at its height, at the beginning of 2013, there were 115,000 enrolled in it. So one big selling point seems to be working.

Except that dealing with something like this on its own would have been cheaper and less disruptive of the entire health insurance industry. Clayton Cramer did the math, and if you gave those people $20,000 per year to subsidize their insurance premiums, it would cost $2.3 billion. Now, that’s a lot of money anyway, but doing it that way would also allow millions of people to keep their plan if they liked their plan; just one example of the disruption that was caused instead.

Again I note that Republicans did have their own solutions to the health care problems, but Democrats insisted that the whole industry had to be upended in order to fix it. We’re finding out just how wrong that was. We are. Seems they aren’t.

G’day. Links?

1. So. The Sterling kerfuffle moves into the second stage, here are two view (one and two). I’m a little concerned about the notion that you can have that much damage done by having a private conversation recorded, sans context, and voila. Ruination. Seems to me public actions should have those kinds of consequences, not private conversation. Just never argue a devils advocate position … ever.
2. Well, I live in Chicago .. and while I don’t follow basketball, for what it’s worth in January they were expected to finish last in the East after losing Deng and Rose. They finished far ahead of expectations. That remains true.
3. Wind.
4. How the President should not argue.
5. A public service reminder.
6. The Benghazi cover-up … and it’s a success. Why was it a success? Because, I think,  the “video” story was believed by the gullible, the tribal, and the wicked. So if you bought the video story, which were you?
7. A school to notice.

In spite of all its rollout issues, the glitches, the delays and the special privileges, the promise of ObamaCare was that, in getting more people, mostly the young and the poor, insured, that would spread out the risk and make insurance cheaper overall, even with those subsidies. By how much? Well, there were promises made, over and over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66bgpRRSDD4

Now, in some of those cases he did say “up to” $2500 dollars. And since 0 is technically on the way up to 2500, if you didn’t save anything, he can count you as a promise kept, just like anyone else trying to sell you something on TV. However, what about these folks?

A recent survey of 148 insurance brokers shows that ObamaCare is sending premiums rising at the fastest clip in decades.

“For the last, about, five years they’ve been doing this survey, so this was the largest percentage increase in any quarter since they’ve been doing (it),” said Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute.

“But at 12 percent, 11 percent increase on average across all the states — that puts it at the upper end of any increase we’ve seen for decades.”

I don’t think that “truth in advertising” laws would allow you to claim that saving negative dollars is somewhere “up to” $2500. Now, are some people saving that much? I’ll stipulate to that, but in general, on average, this is costing the American people more, not less.

And for some states, it’s really bad. Premiums in Pennsylvania went up 28 percent. In Florida, up 37%. In California, up 53%. And those in Delaware have had to deal with a 100% increase in premiums.

Oh, and this isn’t considering the higher deductibles. That’s just as much a cost as the premium. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that the premiums of the ObamaCare plans are going to continue to rise.

Of course, those paying the penalty are saving loads of cash. That defeats the purpose, but hey, savings are savings, right?

So. How about some wordy links?

1. Teh racism. Or not, eh? So, this Sterling fella. Apparently for 10-15 years, “everybody knew” he was prone to make similar remarks (source: ESPN radio Mike/Mike this morning). The recording the NBA will “announce their actions/sanctions” was illegally made. Which is apparently not important to the left. At least this time, unlike the last with the Wisconsin Sentator’s remarks, they aren’t claiming teh racism for comments which were basically exactly the same thing as the President’s own remarks. Somebody smarter than me can tell me how/why those who think taboo’s in general are bad and should be tested at the same time are busy erecting new taboo’s?
2. Speaking of making words taboo. The UK doesn’t like freedom of speech.
3. Oh, it’s not misanthropic. That’s the wrong word. It’s elitist.
4. I have to say there’s a critical flaw in Mr Martin’s thesis. He asks whether Gondor after defeating Sauron went on to kill all those “baby orcs in their baby orc cradles”. Orcs are monsters. They aren’t men. Solzhenitsyn coined the phrase that the line between good and evil goes though every man’s heart. That doesn’t hold for orcs (and other monsters). No good there. Just evil. Killing baby evil monsters isn’t morally tinged with doubt whether they will grow up to be a good orc or not. There is no doubt.
5. Here’s an example with by itself disproves its thesis. Kinda like a Barack Obama speech.
6. Mr Challies is wrong yet again. That’s both far too complicated and just plain wrong. In this book, it is recounted that Father Arseny had a vision during some torture. He could see all those around him, with a flame inside them which represented the “light of Christ”. A church which fails is one that forgets fostering that light in all around you isn’t everyone’s job is one that fails. It’s as simple as that.
7. For the Palin fans, this time with a twist as most of my “Palin fan” remarks go to reasonable things Ms Palin has said. This time, what she says is unreasonable. Recently I was part of a discussion, in which my interlocotur painted himself in a position vis a vis euthenasia in which his opposition to torture is no longer tenable. That is to say if you think dehydration of the infirm is an acceptable way to kill your beloved parent (which by the way is the law of the land), then your objection to waterboarding becomes incoherent. Unless you figure Jesus injunction that we love our enemies as a corollary means we should treat as enemies those who love and are loved by us.
8. So, up north the ice is melting … finally.
9. For the gun control crowd. The masters have different rules than us plebes, eh?
10. So, by the Gini metric income inequality has not increased apparently. So, sounds like those who find this a problem might be in the Mark Twain “lies, damned lies, and statistics” camp.
11. An interesting case to foster ethics discussions.

(This is part of the script of a recent episode of my podcast, "Consider This!" It is always 10 minutes or less, which is relevant to this piece.)

I have a suggestion for a new law and I’d like to run it by you. This podcast has a small voice in politics. It doesn’t have that much influence, if any at all. It’s just me and a microphone, talking to you out there who feel it’s worth listening to, even if you don’t agree with me. I do appreciate all my listeners.

However, I’ve noticed a rather huge imbalance, an unfairness, in the scheme of things. There are huge radio networks out there with millions of listeners, broadcasting 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. How in the world am I supposed to compete with that? Why should their ideas and opinions get more influence than mine? Extremely unfair, right?

So I propose that national news networks be limited to 10 minutes or less a day. Well, they do have more equipment, talent, and money than I do, and they should be able to say perhaps a bit more than I do, so let’s be generous and make that 30 minutes or less. I mean, we want to level the playing field, right? The individual podcaster should be able to compete with the national network if we really want to stick up for the little guy and let everyone’s voice be heard, right?

What’s that you say? The networks have invested in all that talent and equipment, so they should be allowed to say what they want with it? Well then, I’d counter by saying that the CEOs running those networks didn’t oversee that success from the beginning; they are simply the latest head honcho, and while they may have made a contribution to the company’s success, they inherited most of it. I’ve built my success, such as it is, with my own, personal, hard work.

So, does this sound rather silly to you, that folks with bigger radio transmitters, or newspaper subscriptions, than I do should have a cap to how much influence they can have? Well tell ya’ what; so do I. Which is why I find it odd how many on the Left have both celebrated such caps, and are upset that some of those caps were recently removed.

The courts have said that political contributions are political speech, even though, while money talks, it does not do so literally. Of course, exotic dancing has been considered speech, protected by the First Amendment, so the dictionary definition of “speech” is clearly not what we’re talking about here. Just ask Brendan Eich. Campaign contributions are as much political speech as this podcast, and people with more means, be it more audio equipment, pages in a magazine, or cash, should not have their First Amendment protections infringed like that. But when the Supreme Court decided, in the recent McCutcheon case, that some of those limits should be removed, the liberals on the court were upset that this, “weakened America’s democracy”.

So we should shut off those printing presses and broadcast antennas, because America’s democracy depends on it? Absolutely not.

So, my daughter got me using (with her “my fitness pal” a phone/web app/site) so that both of us can lose some weight and get fit. I’ve “configured” it to get me to lose .5 lbs per week for a year or so to get to a nice weight … and I’m getting back to biking and still swimming. I’ve gone to it being hard to eat as little as needed to the other side of the coin, on  a good (exercise) day it’s hard to eat enough. But enough about me … links?

1. A look inside the liberal echo chamber (aka mainstream news media).
2. I’d say the surprise would be if it was otherwise.
3. Mr Bundy’s recent remarks are loudly touted (on the left). Why? As a distraction is the probable cause.
4. That rising tide, which liberals wish to slow to foster inequality … and why that’s a bad idea.
5. Obama contra Obama (yet again).
6. Of church and society (or the Ratzinger/Habermas debate resurfaces).
7. Fine advice, oddly enough.
8. Bureaucracy and self-discipline.
9. Hope (apparently) springs eternal.
10. Some things have always been important.
11. As a general rule, none (and drop the “other” variants as well). Look at War and Peace or the Brothers Karamazov and see how much of any sort they had.
12. Too bad the state department’s main export isn’t slapstick comedy.

(This is part of the script of the latest episode of my podcast, “Consider This!”)

What is it that they say about conservatives? They’re haters, they’re whatever-phobes, they’re intolerant of people who are different than they are. Then what to make of this story.

Over 5 years ago, some guy – we’ll call him Bubba – gave $1000 to a political cause. He gave his personal money, not on behalf of anyone else. A bit of free political speech in action.

Fast forward to today, and Bubba was the target of a campaign to push him out of his job because someone found out about this contribution. Bubba gave in to the pressure, and resigned.

If Bubba had given money to the Sierra Club to save the whales, or to Planned Parenthood to provide free abortions, and this had happened to him, the Left in this country would be outraged. But because Bubba, whose real name is Brendan Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, gave to California’s Proposition 8, the effort to keep marriage between one man and one woman, the otherwise First-Amendment-loving Left are mum, as well as being the ones who did the pushing.

I have said it a number of times before, and I need to say it again. The Progressive element in this country is all about Constitutional rights, right up to the point when those rights are used against their pet political causes. Then the hate, intolerance, and phobias that they accuse others of come quickly to the surface. A clearer case of projection – accusing others of what you yourself harbor – is not easily found.

And consider this. At the time of his donation, Brendan felt the same way about the issue as President Obama, Vice President Biden, and, as it turned out, 60% of California voters. Five short years later, he’s being punished for it by the real Thought Police. There are no allegations that he mistreated, maligned, or otherwise caused harm to any homosexuals in his company. One’s views on this topic have no connection whatsoever with the business of Mozilla; most notably the Firefox web browser. This is completely, 100% a “thought crime”.

It’s the progressive Left that likes to proclaim that it is more tolerant, that is more free-thinking, right up to the point where you disagree with them. Beyond that point, they want to dictate what you can and can’t think, culturally if not legally, and sometimes even legally; just ask Hobby Lobby, or proprietors that don’t wish to participate in same-sex weddings. No, you must toe the line of the tolerant, free-thinkers. Is anyone noticing the irony here, where “mutual respect” only works one way?

“If you like your beliefs, you can keep your beliefs. To yourself. If you don’t, you can’t keep your job.”

Bright week (what the East calls the Paschal week), halfway done.

1. Yur friendly neighborhood faux-Cherokee is “surprised”. Yah, right.
2. This is not unrelated.
3. Some maths for your entertainment.
4. Feels good vs actually looking at the data. Someday soon the same crowd will do the same thing with all the climate noise.
5. So what’s that mean? Gender was kind like pirate rules, i.e., guidelines or that they don’t have earlier data?
6. One pointer at dark matter.
7. Who pays, well the victim pays more it sounds like.
8. Conventional wisdom puts fascism on the far right and communism on the far left. Conventional wisdom, historically speaking, is usually wrong.
9. Government, as Mr Schraub noted, is uniquely situated to make fair judgements. Alas, more commonly they are uniquely situated to make stupid decisions have dire consequences, which by dumb luck didn’t actually transpire here.
10. Judging not by the content of your character … but the color your skin or the contents of your pants.
11. This it seems is a pattern.

G’day.

1. Ambrose lives on.
2. So, we’re all failing to see the strategy here.
3. Trying the “I’m not trying to make money, I’m just delusional” gambit.
4. Not unrelated to the above.
5. So. Will that support evaporate or not? If you were Ukrainian would you bet on more support than we gave Hungary in the ’56?
6. Temperature fluctuations show correlations with … hmm, solar output.
7. All of course explained by recent fluctuations in gun control legislation … oops … what do you mean there haven’t been any changes!? Never mind then.
8. The response should have been, “Dear, data entry is not math, that is preschool level arithmetic.” If you say anything at all.
9. Yikes.
10. Looks like a place for those with money to burn.
11. Doesn’t look “irreverent” to me. It looks like a darn good time is had by all … and quite festive.
12. What we used to call “binge eating” has a new euphemism.
13. So why aren’t math professors sociopathic … but why on the hand, do we find that Disney writers are?

So … Christ is Risen!

1. Hmm. I’ve heard a not-unrelated joke. How many inscrutable persons (pick group known for subtlety) does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer, is three. One to screw in the light bulb and one to confuse.
2. Portland Oregon is apparently either innumerate or flush with cash (or both).
3. Well, apparently Johnny can’t read or do maths … and this offers an unfortunate comparison (see also prior link).
4. Kids and their games …. soooooo, which game might that be?
5. A special creek in that woods yonder.
6. Thoughts? You mean past … “pretty pretty, must pat down”.
7. Short answer: yes.
8. Fun in the sun.
9. The left and affirmative action.
10. Character building, kids not always exactly on board.
11. One warm country and taking advantage of that.
12. Veterans and ice.
13. A song (you probably haven’t heard) for Easter.

Holy week moving right along.

1. In my reading inbox.
2. Call a spade a spade. It’s racism and from the left.
3. This behavior is not unrelated.
4. Heh.
5. We’ve all experienced this.
6. So which is the extremist. Seriously I think the word “extremist” is ill defined. It might mean those in a particular group that hold strong opinions furthest from the center of that group. It also might mean those who hold opinions farthest from the center of groups to which I belong. For example, terrorism seems to be a mainstream middle of the road standard operating procedure for Palestinians in/near Israel. Yet terrorist from there are called “extremists”. Seems to me if your actions and opinions are median in the group to which you belong you aren’t an extremist.
7. Carbon based not-quite life-yet forms.
8. Yap, you know … you can figure out what drugs they took in at those all night binges, and so on … or maybe not quite.
9. And you started out so well, and then had to go … there. Look I realize a lot of Protestants think there is a big horrible heresy by the Roman Catholics regarding works and faith. In reality it’s not an issue. Protestants say you need to have faith in order to be saved. Catholics too say you need to have faith to be saved and that the Bible says if your faith lacks works it isn’t real. Logically then you need works to demonstrate that you actually have the faith which will save. What I don’t understand is why they don’t understand that.
10. On the other hand, this is the sort of things you say when your notions of salvation aren’t from any Christian tradition at all.
11. Our government executive branch proves that stupid isn’t getting scarce anywhere in their midst. Or putting it less mildly.
12. A reminder for those in foreign policy.

So. Tonight was the last of the bridegroom matins. This one has the Hymn of Cassia, which is a beautiful liturgical poem. Links?

1. Mr Obama’s assassination insurance still on the job, the bombing was “worth it” indeed.
2. Some cuteness. On the other hand, I recall returning from a business week-long trip to my 3-4 month old #1 daughter when she was at an age when strong emotions (both good and bad) evoked tears. She was sitting in the living room, not looking at me because it caused her to cry.
3. How Congress would unload trucks.
4. Torture noted.
5. Yes. I’ll go with “too paranoid.” Much of our supply lines to Afghanistan is via Russia itself. If they wanted to obstruct things, be easier shut that pipeline off by just say’n “nyet.”
6. But … it’s for the children!
7. Coincedence? I’d offer … probably not.
8. That can (usually doesn’t) cost upwards of (gasp) $50 … says a guy who apparently doesn’t ever buy a tank of gas, or take a family to the movies.
9. The libertarian choice discussed.

Hey. Holy week!

1. So. Growing up and the seeds of who you were where there from very early. A theme found here and here. I saw this film when it had 4 segments. Now it has 7.
2. Getting there (HT). A pet peeve of me is the dislike especially in cinema that people “are just born talented” and it isn’t a combination of talent and (the missing) hard work that got them to a level of excellence.
3. In case need a laugh.
4. Grumbling in the wings.
5. A book noted.
6. Using a shotgun to do maths.
7. “transplant” seems to be a word that would be far more colorful to describe what is being done in the vernacular.
8. Larmarckian vindication?
9. And to close … a word of warning. 😀

So … my sweet wife informs me that the “yellowing” of my pillowcases is due to “overactive sebaceous glands”. To which I replied (mindful of Franklin), “Oily to bed, oily to rise ….”

1. Technology advances.
2. So, the “wage/gender'” thing is being discussed in the beltway. Here’s a place to start, Ms Althouse has a key quote at the bottom of her link to it. But you can find un-serious discussions on left (and likely the right). Look, if you dispute this “The part of pay disparity driven by sexism is so small that it will be very difficult to detect in any given case, or even in aggregate.” then you have to substantiate your reasons for why you dispute it. If you accept that point, then there is nothing to do, nothing to fix.
3. The White House responds, heh.
4. The global warming credibility gap. Science News admitted the other week there’s a problem which needs explaining. Kinda makes the “science is settled” argument go by the wayside.
5. For those partaking in the Eastern Lenten fast.
6. I don’t buy the premise. The time between the two 20th century world wars was about one generation and the time between the big war of the 19th (Napoleon’s adventures) and WWI was much greater than suggested in the premise. The Crimean war wasn’t very big.
7. Speaking of which.
8. Narf narf narf narf. Slurp.
9. Now that is very cool.
10. Next we will find the canals had water too.
11. A lecture.
12. And finally a note on the Ali/Brandeis kerfuffle from a non-Ali fan. From which which we can glean a description of government in general and our government in particular. From the “it’s turtles all the way down” we can add and in this case, “turtles” represent incompetence.

Spring is sort of creeping in, snow is still however in some weekend forecasts and the trees are still bare.

1. Worried? There are reasons to worry, I doubt that is near the top of the list (HT).
2. Women not liked on the left. Is the dangerous girl an aspect to that? You’d think the whole “truth to power” thing would strike a positive chord.
3. Asses in church.
4. A suggestion for a development that we’d all applaud. How about knocking down our protective trade barriers too while we’re at it?
5. What the heck?
6. Putting the Elane case to a point.
7. So, need a pick-me-up? You’re feel good moment.
8. Evil made possibly by euphemism, an example.
9. Nothing could go wrong with that, eh? Training and supporting bin Laden worked so so well.
10. Giving restaurant reviewers a bad name … or a wake up call.