budbromley

Today there is no meaningful difference between what President Reagan called “the evil empire” of Russia and the evil empire that the American people have created by their votes and non-votes. Both are warlike nations run by and for government/business oligarchies. Both act militarily, bureaucratically, financially, secretly and through propaganda to spy on and suppress their own people. Both act militarily, bureaucratically, financially, secretly and through propaganda to affect regime change in other countries. Both kill and imprison their own people and citizens of other nations and steal private property while covering their acts through the color of law, control of the press and control of banking. Both define “national interest” as consolidation of power and hegemony. Elections during the lifetimes of the majority of citizens in both countries have been controlled/bought by extremely wealthy oligarchs.

ObamaCare Exchanges: Less Choice, Higher Prices

by David Hogberg, Ph.D.

“Many supporters of ObamaCare insisted that the health insurance exchanges created by the law would result in consumers having a greater choice among insurance policies and lower prices.

This study tests those claims by examining policies on the exchanges in metropolitan areas across 45 states for a single 27-year-old and a 57-year-old couple. It then compares those with the policies available in those same areas on eHealthInsurance.com (eHealth) and Finder.healthcare.gov (Finder) in 2013.

The results show that the claims that the ObamaCare exchanges would offer greater choice and lower prices did not hold up.

…

Across all areas examined, the exchanges have resulted in a substantial reduction in choice.

…

Consumers also previously had more lower-cost options than they now have on the exchanges.

…

An examination of subsidies that consumers can receive to purchase insurance on the exchanges produced mixed results on costs.

Conclusion

The claims by ObamaCare supporters that the ObamaCare exchanges would result in greater choice of policies and lower premiums are not supported by the evidence. This study shows that consumers were much more likely to have more insurance options on eHealth and Finder than on the exchanges. They also had access to many plans that cost less than the cheapest plans on the exchanges. That holds true not only for those who have to pay full price on the exchange but even for some who have access to subsidies.

That is the predictable result of regulations that standardize plans and impose community rating and guaranteed issue. Indeed, in the years to come, community rating and guaranteed issue will likely lead to even higher premiums and less choice on the exchange. History shows that community rating and guaranteed issue often lead to the “death spiral” of a health insurance market. A death spiral occurs when the young and healthy drop out of the “insurance pool.” This leads to “adverse selection” in which insurance is primarily attractive to those who tend to be older and sicker. If the insurance pool is comprised largely of older and sicker people, then insurance prices naturally rise to cover their costs. That rate increase results in even more young and healthy people dropping their insurance, leaving the pools even older and sicker than before, and so forth.  As the insurance pool becomes smaller and more expensive to cover, many insurers face huge losses. Eventually, they exit the market, which leaves, at most, a few large insurers still doing business. Fewer insurers in the market means a reduction in insurance options for consumers.

ObamaCare’s exchanges have already taken their first steps toward a death spiral.   The Obama Administration estimates that 38 percent of the exchange insurance pool must comprise of 18-to-34-year-olds to prevent a death spiral. Thus far, 25 percent of exchange enrollees are aged 18-34. – See more at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA656.html#sthash.QUxqM4nn.b3Fi9AqK.dpuf

– See full report here : http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA656.html#sthash.QUxqM4nn.dpuf

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304675504579389492229581738?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304675504579389492229581738.html

Perverted Logic

Thanks to GA Tech climatology professor Judith Curry for her stalwart defense of freedom of speech, academic freedom and media access. The following is from her blog.

All this is becoming quite the soap opera. Apart from the entertainment being provided for the climate blogosphere, there are three really important issues at stake here:

freedom of speech
academic freedom
media access to information
I come down stalwartly on the side freedom of speech and media access to information.

The academic freedom issue is murkier. Academic freedom, as per the Wikipedia:

Academic freedom is the belief that the freedom of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy as well as the principles of academia, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment. Academic freedom is a contested issue and, therefore, has limitations in practice. 

With regards to climate science, IMO the key issue regarding academic freedom is this: no scientist should have to fall on their sword to follow the science where they see it leading or to challenge the consensus. I’ve fallen on my dagger (not the full sword), in that my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator. That said, I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me. I am very very worried about younger scientists, and I hear from a number of them that have these concerns.

Tenure is an amazing privilege for academics. And now we see in the Mann/UVa case, that the establishment academics are worried about fear of embarrassment by public disclosure and fear that those who dislike their findings will conduct invasive fishing expeditions in search of a pretext to discredit them. Come on, big boy pants please. We are talking about publicly funded research, and a primary concern is supposed to be avoiding embarrassing the scientists?

For the past decade, scientists have come to the defense of Michael Mann, somehow thinking that defending Michael Mann is fighting against the ‘war on science’ and is standing up for academic freedom. Its time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own. Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann’s science, critical of Mann’s professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann’s behavior as revealed in the climategate emails. All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom.

The climate science field, and the broader community of academics, have received an enormous black eye as a result of defending the hockey stick and his behavior. Its time to increase the integrity of climate research particularly with regards to increasing transparency, calling out irresponsible advocacy, and truly promoting academic freedom so that scientists are free to pursue research without fear of recriminations from the gatekeepers and consensus police.http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/22/steyn-et-al-versus-mann/

This is a truly astounding abuse of U.S. citizens (and European citizens) by their government.  Where is the action from Congress to stop it?   “…White House’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, determined that the [NSA] mass surveillance program investigated was not only ineffective–they found it had never stopped even a single imminent terrorist attack–but that it had no basis in law. Specifically, the board concluded, “we have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation.” And in the conclusion (page 102) of this White House oversight board’s report “The NSA’s bulk records program was initiated more than 4 years before the government sought authorization for it under Section 215 of the Patriot Act…. Because Section 215 does not provide a sound legal basis for the NSA’s bulk telephone records program, we believe the program MUST BE ENDED.” (Capitalization for emphasis is mine.)

Edward Snowden revealed to an EU parliament committee that spy agencies of European countries were complicit in spying on each other’s citizens and changing laws to make spying easier.  “Snowden’s testimony also ranged over disclosures to come, and the complicity of European spy agencies in snooping on each other’s citizens—and then sharing the data with the NSA, which gets the full package. Countries even modify their privacy laws to make the NSA’s job (and that of their own agencies) easier.”  http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/10/edward-snowden-nsa-too-busy-spying-on-am

Here is the report by the White House’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board PCLOB-Report-on-the-NSA Telephone-Records-Program

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042810-531731-the-10-trillion-climate-fraud.htm#

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/05/03/03climatewire-sale-of-chicago-climate-exchange-to-ice-reinfo-362.html

“But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out,” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.” Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.

All that cronyism and corruption is catching up with the administration. According to Politico, “The Energy Department’s inspector general has launched more than 100 criminal investigations” related to the department’s green-energy programs.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/…/24/gJQAXnXCnU_story.html

“On the day of the attack, according to a report in The Guardian, the readiness of the ambassador’s five-member security detail raises questions. Three of the four agents with Stevens, according to the report, left their rifles, helmets and body armor in another area under orders by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, which was confirmed by the ARB [Accountability review Board] report.”

“This makes no sense, given that standard operating procedures in a hostile environment require that weapon be kept at the ready all times. Another question that needs to be answered: Why would the secretary of state give such an order?” …

“… this was an operation that went terribly wrong.”

“According to my source’s in-country contacts, there never was any intention to kill Stevens. He was supposed to be kidnapped and held as a hostage in exchange for the release of the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman. It should be recalled that this was the No. 1 objective of then-Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in his Washington visit in 2012.”

“All the unanswered questions and the truth of what actually took place at our Benghazi compound that cost the lives of four Americans can only be resolved by the formation of a special committee with subpoena powers.”

James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Full article here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/3/lyons-benghazi-was-a-planned-tragedy/?page=all#pagebreak

Obama and Democrats with their greenies and global banking elite supporters have created yet another unnecessary war by the weakness and dependency they have created in America, especially energy weakness and dependence via their climate scam. Yet, cheap American energy is still the major card Obama could play to repair the situation, to stop the nukes from flying.  Read the link below on National Review by Tom Rogan.

The US has THE largest reserves of oil and gas, but the largest US oil companies are 17th on the list of oil producers … because so-called liberals have made most U.S. oil and gas lands (where production is cheaper and safer) off limits and tripled or quadrupled taxes on oil companies in addition to loading them with near impractical regulatory hurdles.

Meanwhile Putin, well experienced in collectivist tyranny, has his energy noose around EU necks.  EU has almost no oil, and have fooled themselves in the same collectivist climate scam as the U.S., denying themselves access to their own gas and coal…with the notable exception of the Polish.  Ukrainians never stood a chance in Putin’s gambit.

(Image Canada Free Press)

Obama didn’t start this energy crisis, but he has been driving the nails in coffins with each regime change “Arab Spring” he has de-stabilized, armed, and paid for with the lives and wealth of Americans and hopeful freedom lovers …for example the $5 billion the US State Department recently issued to Ukraine while standing in front of Exxon and Chevron posters…$5 billion of U.S. taxpayer money that Americans did not have.  Later we will learn about U.S. and NATO covert operators or mercenaries in Ukraine.   Obama and his green shirted thugs are playing a fool’s game with world class tyrants who know appeasement is weakness.

The US, NATO, UN, EU and the rest of collectivist elites are trying to protect U.S. petrodollars (trading oil and gas in dollars because dollars are in their reserves), while at the same time pushing oil and gas companies and entire countries to invest in unsustainable energy sources, which are in fact unsustainable without government subsidy, while at the same time not investing in proven U.S. energy resources and not allowing U.S. companies to invest (e.g. XL pipeline, 90% of U.S. lands off limits, shutting down coal, nuclear, refineries, etc.)  Their strategy is a fools game, like playing chess by giving away all of your pawns, both castles and knights so only royalty can play.

On the other hand, if the U.S. were to reverse its disastrous oil/gas/energy/climate policy and instead opens the door for exploration, production, refineries, etc. then energy prices will drop quickly.  Putin runs out of money and power when that happens.  Reagan made a similar move when he brought the Saudis into full production, collapsing the oil price and ending the cold war with the Soviet Union. Today, OPEC and the middle east tyrants will not like the competition from the U.S.  Finally, the U.S. could disengage from these continuous, undeclared, expensive and deadly wars.

“Were the president to unleash America’s energy boom into the export sector, fast-tracking energy supplies to Europe, he’d pull the rug out from under Putin’s feet. No longer subject to Putin’s energy protection racket, Europe would be free to take a tougher stand against his intimidation. More important, removed of the foreign capital flows born of his own energy exports, Putin would be unable to support his increasing military expenditures and continuing support for Assad’s rampages in Syria.” ~ Tom Rogan

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372348/four-truths-international-relations-tom-rogan

http://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/watch-the-sun