GOV. FRAUD/WASTE/ABUSE

November 22, 2014

In a way, Hillary was right in saying that businesses don’t create jobs

My article as originally published in American Thinker: 

Hillary Clinton may be an economic ignoramus for saying, “Don’t let anybody tell you its corporations and businesses that create jobs.”  In fact, Daniel Greenfield does a wonderful job dismembering her so-called wisdom in his piece at Frontpage Mag.  But I’m not thoroughly convinced anyone could be so dim-witted as to truly believe such malarkey (except for maybe Elizabeth Warren), so perhaps the “world’s smartest woman” deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one?

I know she’s now attempting to walk back her remarks but I just don’t buy it.  So could it be that the woman who had her presidency stolen from her in 2008 was instead just taking a subtle jab at President Obama’s economic policy?  After all, given six years of Obama’s “fundamental change,” there are clearly some elements of truth to her claim.

As is the case with the multitude of half-truths the Left presents as facts, proper context is required here too.  And within the context of the following, Hillary is absolutely correct in her assertion:

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when they see companies nationalized or contract law thrown out as was done during the whole GM and Chrysler debacle.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when they are burdened with the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when government unleashes thousands of pages of costly new regulations upon a stagnant overregulated economy.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when they witness a President use his pen and his phone as a Constitution-killing weapon of mass destruction.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when they learn that an administration was willing to use the IRS to punish its political enemies.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when a President threatens to put an industry (such as the coal industry) out of business.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when money is extracted from them and given to crony companies such as Solyndra.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when they watch the government take control of 1/6th of the U.S. economy via the healthcare industry and then can’t even build a simple website.

Corporations and businesses didn’t create jobs just because a President arbitrarily decided that 2010 was to be the summer of recovery.

Corporations and businesses clearly aren’t creating jobs which may explain why the labor participation rate is at a 36-year low in spite of government’s historically massive “stimulus” and money-printing programs — the vary things that Hillary thinks create jobs.

Businesses do however create jobs in a free market protected by the stable rule of law under a more limited government, like they did during the “era of big government is over” economy that Bill Clinton inherited from President Ronald Reagan.

Corporations and businesses most certainly do create the jobs.  They just don’t do it when they’re terrified by an anti-business tyrant such as President Obama.  I wonder what Hillary Clinton would do to make sure “corporations and businesses don’t create jobs” if elected President in 2016?

 


Bird Brains Outsmart Progressive Brains

IMG_1320My article as originally published in American Thinker: 

When does the dismantling of an aged, blighted, environment-exploiting symbol of capitalism and the returning of a small portion of a beautiful body of water to its delicate natural state — a simple no-brainer for any greenie worth his weight in solar panels — cause a dilemma for the environmental movement? It does so when it happens to be colonized by a protected species of nesting birds like the ones inhabiting the old eastern span of the San Francisco Bay Bridge.

I’ve been watching this story unfold for the past several months (Hat tip: Brian Sussman and KSFO) and somehow these birds continue to have the audacity to refuse to do what bureaucrats armed with massive taxpayer funded coercion wish for them to do:

With the demolition of the old Bay Bridge eastern span already six months behind schedule, Caltrans plans to spend $12.8 million to beat the clock on a bird-nesting season that could tie up the takedown well into next year.

At issue: 800 or so double-crested cormorants – a state-protected “species of special concern” – that have enjoyed migratory squatter rights on the bridge since they moved here from Alaska, Mexico and Nova Scotia in 1984.

Does the fact that some of these birds happen to be illegal immigrants explain the apparent preferential treatment they’re getting and why it is that the taxpayers are being tarred and feathered to such an extent? And the situation is only getting messier for taxpayers:

Cute as they may appear, the double-crested cormorants and other birds that call the old Bay Bridge home are fast becoming a $30 million-plus headache.

[Snip]

As crews demolish the 10,000-foot-long steel structure where the birds roost, they’ve had to navigate around broadly interpreted state and federal environmental laws designed to protect the feathered critters.

“We are not going to argue with the law — the issue is often the interpretation of it,” said Randy Rentschler, spokesman for the Bay Area Toll Authority, which is overseeing the tear-down.

“And the fact is, the bridge construction has suffered tens of millions of cost overruns and months of delays as these (enforcement) agencies have interpreted the regulations,” Rentschler said.

The bird-friendly moves include Caltrans spending $709,000 to build 2½-foot-wide nesting “condos” on the underside of the new bridge, in the hopes that the 800 or so state-protected cormorants would move off the old span.

An additional $1 million has been spent to try to lure the birds over to the new bridge, using bird decoys, cormorant recordings and even nests made from discarded Christmas wreaths.

But the birds haven’t budged, prompting Caltrans to draw up Plan B — speeding up the demolition in the hopes of beating next spring’s nesting season because, once the birds start laying eggs, the work has to stop.

How could it be that human progress has caused nature to act so — unnaturally?

It appears that man and nature are able to peacefully coexist as many species simply adapt to changes in their surroundings — as has occurred for millions of years — and sometimes even prefer what man has to offer. But there may be a hidden lesson in this for a state like California.

Build all future dams with thousands of “structural” concrete cubbies that are sure to become populated with one or more protected species.  A bird, a snail — it won’t take much.  There will then be no way on Mother Earth that we’ll be seeing dams removed or the fight for the removal of others without an enormous amount of in-fighting amongst various environmental groups with competing interests.

So in the future, don’t just construct a new “dam” to help curtail the water woes of a state like California. Build a massive concrete-reinforced wildlife “sanctuary” that directly backs up to beautiful “wetlands.”  The enormous “Cormorant nesting platform” spanning the San Francisco Bay that was previously built has clearly been an enormous success.

Perhaps the birds are more open to real progress than those who call themselves progressives?

 


How to Sell a Corporate Tax Cut

My article as originally published in American Thinker:

Finding a way to prevent the next Burger King from fleeing the U.S. (to avoid paying the highest corporate tax rates in the world) appears to rank fairly high on the priority list for both Republicans and Democrats. But the two parties couldn’t be farther apart on the appropriate policy to end these so-called “unpatriotic” tax inversions.

No strangers to coercion, the Obama administration via Treasury Secretary Jack Lew recently announced that through the use of executive action, “the agency would change several tax rules to stop companies from buying smaller, foreign firms and then moving out of the U.S.” These types of “solutions” will only serve to further slow down an already stagnant economy.

Alternatively, Republicans support free market solutions (at least some still do) and believe that a lowering of the corporate income tax rate would put an end to these tax inversions and help revive the economy. Better yet, as John C. Goodman asks in a recent Forbes piece: “Why do we have a corporate income tax in the first place? Economists know that corporations don’t pay taxes. People pay taxes.” Good question.

But given the Republican Party’s messaging problem, how could they get a majority of the public to support any kind of meaningful corporate tax reform let alone abolition?  Although Americans would clearly benefit from the resulting combination of higher wages, new business creation, higher dividends, and lower product and service prices, the mainstream media instead focuses on one thing — corporate greed.

Unlike Republicans, if the Democrat Party were to suddenly be in support of eliminating the corporate income tax (I know, stay with me here), they would sell it in a way that would excite the electorate and have the American people marching in the streets demanding it.

Perhaps Republicans could attain that very same outcome by proposing a corporate tax reform plan that includes profit-sharing with employees — one that cuts the corporate tax rate by 50% and effectively abolishes it at the same time?

First, eliminate all loopholes that help enrich politicians, squander company resources on (legal) tax avoidance and give crony corporations an unfair advantage in the marketplace. Then allow businesses to either “patriotically” pay the full 35% rate on profits (we could call this the Buffett option) or instead keep 50% of the taxes due, and then distribute the remaining 50% equally among all employees. This would have the effect of a 50% tax rate cut for corporations, an immediate income increase for workers and — perhaps most importantly — keep the bulk of this supply-side money out of the mismanaging, economy-killing hands of the elites in Washington, D.C.

But what about corporations that employ large numbers of non U.S. workers? Should they be rewarded for shipping jobs overseas? In a piece over at Breitbart, Rick Manning calls for a reduction of the corporate tax based upon the number of U.S. employees the firm employs: “Eliminate all corporate tax breaks, and replace the current code with a tiered tax system based upon how many of your workers are employed in the United States.”

The same concept could be easily applied to a profit-sharing tax plan. Corporations with zero foreign workers could pay zero in taxes while businesses with seventy percent of their workforce in the U.S. would have to pay thirty percent of the taxes due and the remaining seventy percent could be kept with half of it distributed to their American employees.

While some politicians are scheming for ways to bring home the 1.4 trillion or more in corporate profits parked overseas (which would only further line their pockets as well as those of their cronies), this profit-sharing tax plan could provide for a tax holiday under the same terms and help bring back some of this money in a way that would actually stimulate the economy.

Democrats claim that they want the economy to grow; that they want to see more money in the pockets of American workers and that they want to keep American jobs from being shipped overseas. This plan would certainly move us towards accomplishing all three of those goals. 

With the labor participation rate at a record low, isn’t it time for Republicans to start being creative and — at the very least — call their bluff?  

 

 

 

 


Throwing American Foster Kids Under the Obama Bus

Immigrant Sign 2My article as originally published in American Thinker:    

Breitbart recently reported that the federal government is offering (through a Southern California charity) up to $6,000.00 per month (tax free) to house illegal immigrant children.  This should come as no surprise to those who recognize that the rainbow hovering over President Obama’s Utopia contains nothing but a full spectrum of stupidity and a pot of gold at the end in D.C.  Given this latest revelation in Obama’s growing immigration crisis, any adoption agencies currently struggling with the daunting task of placing American foster kids into good homes may wish to take heed of these developments.

Benswann.com offers some additional details:

Benswann.com called Crittenton FFA, which is located in Orange County and provides services for Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, and found that for those willing to a take in a child under the age of 16, you can receive up to $854.00 tax free per month. For those taking in a child over 16, the total is $1,008.00 per month in reimbursement. If you have a 5 bedroom house and can take in as many as 6 children, you can receive reimbursement of up to $6,054.00 per month tax free.

Perhaps not by tomorrow, but like everything else this administration touches, you can bet your bottom dollar that if expanded, this policy will eventually be met with undesirable consequences.  According to adoptuskids.org, there are currently 104,000 American kids waiting to be placed into homes.  So how will flooding the foster system with illegal immigrant children and offering a high monthly stipend to house them alter the chances of all these American children finding homes?

For the answer, just contrast the above advertised rates for illegal kids with the 2013/14 statewide foster rates for American children in California.  By housing a child 0-4, a household will be reimbursed $657.00 per month, and for children over fifteen, the rate jumps to $820.00 per month.  Those who house six older children would be reimbursed $4,920.00 per month.  So choosing to house American children instead of illegal immigrants would result in $1,134.00 of lost potential income – or, to put it another way, the monthly payments for two very nice automobiles. 

Just as misguided rent control laws result in housing shortages followed by higher rents and minimum wage laws cause surpluses of unskilled workers followed by higher unemployment rates, the laws of economics will find equilibrium here as well.  By doing this, the Obama administration is giving illegal “dreamers” the upper hand over deserving American children who are dreaming of being placed into loving homes. 

The Obama administration’s latest “solution” to an illegal immigrant crisis it created merely throws American foster kids under the Obama bus.  Unfortunately, it’s becoming crystal-clear that the underside of Obama’s bus still has room for millions more.

 

 

 


Housing Obama’s Flood of Illegal Immigrant Children

ConstitutionMy article as originally published in American Thinker:    

By now President Obama is probably wondering what to do with the influx of illegal immigrant children that are entering this country as a direct result of his previous lawless acts regarding immigration reform. This presents more of an in-your-face problem than some of his previous scandals as it’s hard to make warehouses full of idle kids just disappear. And this problem will only grow exponentially if Obama does act unilaterally on amnesty following Cantor’s defeat.  

The president’s increasingly brazen trashing of the Constitution (a certain Lord Acton quote comes to mind) seems to continually be met with Congressional yawns, so what’s to stop him from taking things a step or two further in order to “solve” his latest orchestrated crisis? The solution is really quite simple for a president with his kind of power. Obama could start by moving forward with one of his stated goals from back in 2008: 

 

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. 

 

So who would step up and prevent Obama from turning these illegal immigrants into “soldiers” for his civilian national security force? As to the question of where to house all of his new “national security” soldiers — that’s the easy part.  He could simply pull out his pen and cross-out that pesky 3rd Amendment. Again, who would stop him based upon what we’ve seen so far? 

 

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

Most opposition would become paralyzed following any Obama lecture about fairness; the U.S. being wealthiest nation on earth and how only a racist would dare oppose such a proposal.  Besides, he already told us that “our future rests” on the success of DREAM-kids.  If middle class families were to complain about any unfair burden, they could simply be reminded of how tough Hillary Clinton had it following her stint in the White House. 

Ben Shapiro sums up the situation succinctly: “President Barack Obama believes he is above the law… That’s because he is.” And it’s not just conservatives who understand who the real Obama is. Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley recently said that “Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”   

As for the illegal children, personally I prefer Rush’s idea of taking them to the source of all this “caring” and dropping them off within the borders of the massively wealthy zip codes that surround Washington D.C.

 

 

 


Protecting America from Smoke (and Mirror) ‘Inhalation’

My article as originally published in American Thinker:   

To continue to believe even the smallest assemblage of language emanating from the Obama White House or mainstream media – which dutifully protects the former – surely requires one to partake in the heavy smoking of a particular substance that now happens to be legal within the confines of Colorado.   

Eleanor Clift’s attempt to obfuscate the truth by claiming (with a straight face) that Ambassador Stevens “was not murdered” and instead just “died of smoke inhalation” during an attack that escalated due to “that video” is but the latest example.  Clift was talking about the anti-Muslim video that newly released e-mails show the Obama administration had mendaciously characterized as the cause of the Benghazi terrorist attack.

Jay Carney attempted to make full use of smoke and mirrors during questioning (from a press corps that still gave him friendlier treatment then any Republican would have received) about the release of the smoking-gun e-mails.  He claimed (also with a straight face) that the e-mails were not actually about Benghazi.

Being subjected to these two performances was a bit like watching the interrogation scene in the Shrek movie (minus the humor), where Pinocchio utilizes his best Clintonian linguistic skills in an unsuccessful attempt to maintain the length of his nose while answering questions.

 

Many details concerning the numerous scandals surrounding President Obama are becoming increasingly more visible through the thick haze of lies, spin, and propaganda, thanks mostly to a new media providing the American people with much-needed fresh air.  Because of this, in order to continue protecting the president, the mainstream press will need to find new ways to contort into positions that even the highest-paid ladies of the evening would be unwilling to entertain.  Is it any wonder the Democrats want to set fire to the First Amendment and silence a conservative media that consistently unveils the ever-growing nose that unmistakably defines the face of the Democrat Party?

If the Democrats, the MSM, and academia are ultimately successful in snuffing out the First Amendment, it is America that will suffer a slow painful death, following the smoke-and-mirror “inhalation” it is constantly subjected to.


Blinded by Green Energy

Blinded 1My article as originally published in American Thinker:  

Last weekend, my father-in-law took my son and me to Arizona to watch a couple of Giants games during Spring Training – an early birthday gift for my son, and a truly fabulous experience that I’m sure my soon to be ten-year-old will never forget.  But before we even made it to Arizona, I witnessed something else pretty unforgettable during the flight.  About an hour or so into our journey from Sacramento to Phoenix, I noticed three extremely bright lights off in the distance while looking through a window on the right side of the aircraft.  The lights were so intense that I thought I was looking at three miniature suns.  In all my years of flying (that route included), I had never seen anything like this before.

I had my suspicions that the lights had something to do with some sort of solar farm, and after reading an article in The Daily Caller and doing a little research using Google Maps, I realized that I was in fact a victim of the world’s largest solar thermal plant – and that I wasn’t alone:

Airplane pilots cruising over southern California have been complaining about a “nearly blinding” glare emanating from a massive government-funded solar thermal facility.

The Ivanpah solar energy plant in San Bernardino County is the world’s largest solar thermal plant and has 173,500 large mirrors that reflect sunlight onto boilers in three 459-foot towers. A feat of modern engineering — to green energy advocates, but a flying hazard to pilots.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) got two anonymous complaints in August that mentioned a “blinding glare” coming from the Ivanpah solar facility. One complaint came from a Los Angeles air traffic controller and the other from a small transport plane pilot that took off from an airport in Boulder City, Nevada.

“The FAA is aware of potential glare from solar plants and is exploring how to best alert pilots to the issue,” an FAA spokesman told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Why didn’t someone think of this before breaking ground on such an enormous project?  Well, according to the DC article, they did:

BrightSource’s environmental impact study for Ivanpah included mitigation measures for glare issues related to the site’s reflective mirrors. The aviation community actually raised such worries during the environmental review process.

Ivanpah’s environmental impact study found that the solar thermal plant could cause temporary blindness to pilots flying within 3,300 feet of the heliostats, which compromises safety. BrightSource had to develop a heliosat position plan to mitigate the potential harm from Ivanpah’s glare.

I think the study may have been off by more than a few decimal points with its estimate of pilots having to be within only 3,300 feet of the heliostats to experience temporary blindness.  When I snapped the below photo (the only one that wasn’t totally overexposed) with my phone, the aircraft was at about 35,000 feet and dozens of miles to the East of Ivanpah’s 459-foot green-‘n’-clean towers.

 

Many who are blinded by green energy don’t know about or simply ignore the heavy reliance on taxpayer subsidies and massive cronyism surrounding it.  But now, in addition to the fiscal impracticality of green energy, we have Bald Eagles being killed by ugly wind turbines and pilots being dangerously disorientated by giant solar plants – and as if the Ivanpah solar plant wasn’t causing enough trouble, it’s the very same plant that has been conveniently cooking birds before they fall to the ground.

Isn’t it interesting how green energy (and those who amass their wealth from it) gets a free pass from any of its negative impacts, unlike the economy-growing affordable energy options?  I guess those privileged to make these green omelets are permitted to break a few eggs – even if some of those eggs happen to be a protected species or are otherwise diligently protected by the TSA.

The next time I fly this route, I’ll be sure to bring along a few marshmallows to roast along the way.

We Already Have ‘Super Trucks,’ Mr. Obama

My article as originally published (math corrected) in American Thinker:   

President Obama just threw another wrench into the economy with his new heavy-duty truck efficiency standards. While it may be desirable to see more efficient trucks on the road, as Kevin Williamson at NRO pointed out — this technology isn’t free.

President Barack Obama is a masterly practitioner of the occult art of single-entry bookkeeping. Consider his speech today, in which he praised the fuel economy of a new “super truck,” making the point that, since most U.S. freight moves in trucks, lower operating costs for freight operators should in theory mean lower costs for consumers. And he would have a point — if that fuel-economy technology were free. It is not. It costs money to develop. It costs money to deploy. Where it adds to the price of a vehicle, it also adds to ownership costs such as insurance and taxation.

And as truckers, especially single operators (AKA small businessmen), have found out in California, free it is not.

So just how inefficient are these evil heavy-duty gas hogs? The White House “fact sheet” claims that in 2010, heavy-duty vehicles accounted for only four percent of the vehicles on the road, but consumed twenty-five percent of the fuel. While this sounds pretty bad on the surface, perhaps we should take a look under the hood given the source?

I think it’s important to keep in mind that vehicles contribute to the economy by doing work, be it carrying people to and from the office, or transporting thousands of pounds of goods across state lines. But is it really fair to compare giant cargo haulers with passenger cars simply as a percentage of the vehicles on the road? Shouldn’t the efficiency of doing actual work be what is instead considered?

If heavy-duty vehicles account for only four percent of what is traveling the road, this means that out of every one-hundred vehicles only four would be heavy-duty, and ninety-six would be standard autos. I understand there is a large variance of vehicular size and weight, but for simplicity, let’s take just one group and compare ninety-six passenger vehicles having a total loaded weight of 4,000 lbs each with four semi-trucks with a total legal loaded weight of 80,000 lbs each. The ninety-six cars would weigh a total of 384,000 lbs and the four heavy-duty trucks would weigh a total of 320,000 lbs. When looked at this way, four percent of these vehicles are doing almost as much economic work as the other ninety-six percent. Put another way, the heavy-duty trucks do about forty-five percent of the total work while representing only four percent of the ‘workers’ in this case. Further comparison using actual payload capacity would only serve to make these monstrous trucks look even better.

But what about comparing fuel consumption with work done? Using the same vehicle specifications as above, a truck with a total legal weight of 80,000 lbs can travel about (again keeping it simple) five miles using one gallon of fuel. A passenger car that gets 20 MPG uses .25 gallons of fuel during that same five mile trip but only hauls a total load of 4000 lbs. In order to do the same work (move 80,000 lbs) as the heavy-duty trucks, twenty of these cars would be needed. But in order for those twenty cars to move the same amount of weight over the same five miles, they would instead consume five gallons of fuel. That is a 400% increase if my math is correct.

I won’t get into it here, but couldn’t we also factor in the energy used to produce these vehicles as well? A semi truck engine can last over one million miles while a standard auto engine will last only one or two hundred thousand miles.

It looks to me like we already have “super trucks,” Mr. President. And I have faith that over time, the market will improve upon what we already have, and do so in an efficient manner.

Left alone, the free market has no problem efficiently pulling its own weight. But when the dead-weight of politicians and their “brilliant” ideas are piled upon it, the economy slows down to a crawl.

 


Minimum Wage Destroys Education for the Poor

My article as originally published in American Thinker:  

While President Obama may still possess the ability to bedazzle a certain segment of the population with his haughty rhetoric, his policies, coupled with his economic ignorance, continue to wreak havoc upon the U.S. economy. Case in point: his persistent and injudicious push for an increase in minimum wage that, if achieved, would only further the economic carnage. Without a doubt, minimum wage laws hurt entry-level workers and ultimately the whole economy, as Thomas Sowell and Ron Ross clearly demonstrate. But perhaps the cruelest consequence of minimum-wage law is the fact that it denies poor Americans access to a truly affordable education. With overall teen unemployment already at 21% and sky-high black teen unemployment at 38% under Obama’s watch, his proposal would only exacerbate this problem.

Merely highlighting the hourly wage rate as the singular measure of value received from working in an entry level capacity conveniently ignores one of the most important aspects of the story — education. When an individual has zero work experience and very little in the way of skills to offer, it is imperative to somehow gain such experience. The ability to do just that represents the highest level of value for the entry-level employee. Others think nothing of paying to receive a similar level of instruction in the classroom or taking an unpaid internship to develop new skills. But that’s often just not an option for the poor.

Given the exorbitant costs of higher education (due in part to the ever-reaching tentacles of government), a paid entry-level position appears to be one of the better educational options available for some within the ranks of the poor and middle class. But misguided minimum-wage laws, in effect, price many of these would-be students out of a quality education and a chance to get ahead in life. Employers are willing to give (hire and train) these “students” a paid education in exchange for their labor when it makes good economic sense, but when “tuitions” are raised by government mandated wage controls, only the highest skilled “students” will be accepted, effectively outlawing this form of education for those who possess the lowest level of skills.

President Obama said: “Americans overwhelmingly agree nobody who works full-time should ever have to raise a family in poverty. And that is why I firmly believe it’s time to give America a raise.” But wage rates are for the market to decide and no one should expect to raise a family on the wages an entry-level position provides. As it is with any form of education, it is up to the individual as to whether or not something is actually gained during the process. Some will, of course, be complacent in their low-level position or lack the capacity to move up the corporate ladder, much like the proverbial college student-for-life or dropout. But that is certainly no reason for government to effectively bar entry for those who lack other choices but have the ability and ambition to acquire skills using this approach. While the full monetary value of such employment doesn’t appear on one’s paycheck at first, once an individual develops marketable skills, employers will be forced to compete for their labor within the marketplace.

President Obama will no doubt be given accolades from the Left for all of his faux compassion. But his proposal is anything but compassionate and is more than a job-killer — it’s an education-killer for the poor he claims to be trying to help. This will only breed more dependence upon government, which may actually be the point.

By the way, who wants to actually work (and learn) for a ten-plus dollar per hour minimum wage when, on average, welfare pays much more and requires absolutely zero effort? And that’s even before factoring in ObamaCare’s disincentives to continue working as hailed by the Left.

 


When will daily ObamaCare body count reporting begin?

My article as originally published in American Thinker:   

Even before the last tidbits of silver and gold confetti could be swept away following New Year’s Eve celebrations, Americans were already starting off the year with fresh ObamaCare surprises.  Some of the new “enrollees” in President Obama’s signature law are showing up at hospitals in parts of the U.S. and are being met with confusion as to whether or not they’re actually insured.  Because of this, some are just leaving without needed treatment to avoid the enormous out-of-pocket expenses that would be incurred (which they would most likely pay anyway due to ObamaCare’s high deductibles), as Rick Moran discussed in this AT piece highlighting a Northern Virginia hospital.

And in Chicago, a doctor decided to move forward with a patient’s scheduled surgery not knowing if the costs would be covered by insurance:

Paperwork problems almost delayed suburban Chicago resident Sheri Zajcew’s scheduled surgery Thursday, but Dr. John Venetos decided to operate without a routine go-ahead from the insurance company. That was after Venetos’ office manager spent two hours on hold with the insurer Thursday, trying to get an answer about whether the patient needed prior authorization for the surgery. The office manager finally gave up.

[snip]

Venetos, a Chicago digestive system specialist, described “tremendous uncertainty and anxiety” among patients calling his office recently. Some thought they’d signed up for coverage but hadn’t received insurance cards yet. Others had insurance policies that were canceled and weren’t sure if their coverage had been reinstated after Gov. Pat Quinn decided to allow one-year extensions of canceled plans.

Venetos said he has decided to take a risk and provide care for these patients, at least until there’s less confusion about coverage.

So what exactly will happen once tens of millions of Americans start losing their employer-sponsored health plans due to ObamaCare, thus adding even more confusion to a once-working system?  This is serious stuff, and if it continues, people will start dying in sizable numbers.

Just imagine if this disaster known as ObamaCare were instead BushCare under the previous administration.  Rest assured, if people were to begin dying due to these same disastrous policies under George W. Bush, Americans would be reminded daily of the body count, just as they were during the Iraq War when he was commander and chief.  Of course, not only would we be hearing about the daily BushCare body counts (along with his dwindling poll numbers); we would also be glued to the TV watching simultaneous impeachment hearings.

Don’t hold your breath while waiting for the mainstream media to provide any real tally of future ObamaCare-caused carnage.

By the end of 2014, perhaps Americans will be singing “Auld Lang Syne” while reminiscing about what once was the greatest health care system in the world