[Zero Hedge] For months now we've warned, as have many prominent Republican legislators, that Obamacare is on the verge of collapse (see "Obamacare On "Verge Of Collapse" As Premiums Set To Soar Again In 2017").
It's not that shocking really as the fundamental concept behind the legislation made it doomed from the start. The idea was that, out of an abundance of compassion for their elders, young, healthy millennial families would fork up $10s of thousands of dollars each year to purchase health insurance they didn't really need. Those premiums would then be used to subsidize care for the elderly who consume more than their "fair share," to quote Obama.
Unfortunately, the basic math skills of our young millennials turned out to be better than the Obama administration had planned for and they figured out they were better off just paying the Obamacare tax to the IRS than paying the larger Obamacare 'tax' associated with buying a service they never use. This "adverse selection bias" left risk pools way worse than insurers planned, which drove premiums even higher, which forced even more young people to ditch their insurance and the cycle will continue until the system ultimately fails.
In fact, as we pointed out last week, Knoxville, TN could be ground zero for the Obamacare explosion as it's 40,000 residents live in a county that has been left with no healthcare options for the 2018 plan year after Humana pulled out of exchanges there.
And, with the fate of Obamacare all but sealed, you can imagine our shock to learn that several House Republicans are now apparently warming up to the legislation.
One such person is Patrick McHenry of North Carolina who says that any efforts of the Trump administration to lure votes from the Freedom Caucus by relaxing rules to allow insurance providers to charge people with pre-existing conditions higher premiums would be a "bridge too far" for some more moderate Republicans. Per The Hill:
#4
The idea was that, out of an abundance of compassion for their elders, young, healthy millennial families would fork up $10s of thousands of dollars each year to purchase health insurance they didn't really need.
Originally, SS and Medicare were supposed to be in a lockbox. These were put into the mainstream budget and the Beltway Party has continued to rob from these funds for a long time to fund other pet projects. It is no surprise these Ponzi schemes didn't work--they never do for very long.
[PJ] WASHINGTON ‐ Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said House Republicans should not have started with Obamacare as the first major issue to tackle in the new Congress, emphasizing that an infrastructure package and curing the opioid addition crisis would get more bipartisan support.
"I’ve told President Trump this, I’ve said you need some wins in the column and the bottom line is infrastructure. I don’t know a Democrat or Republican that doesn’t have an infrastructure problem ‐ that’s some commonality. I don’t know a Democrat or Republican that doesn’t have an addiction or an opioid problem; that’s something we could cure," Manchin said during the discussion "From the State Capitol to the Senate Floor" at The Atlantic’s recent Renewal Summit in D.C.
"It’s a silent killer. It doesn’t pick Democrats or Republicans or liberals or conservatives so once you find that and get a start ‐ we’ve been so far apart for so long we’ve got to find something that brings us together. Healthcare is not it. We know that, and why they went down that rat hole I have no idea," he added.
#3
Isn't it funny how everyone suddenly wants to talk about Opoid addiction, which wasn't (to the powers that be) a noteworthy problem until the working class in the Northeast voted the wrong way?
#5
TSM, lots and lots of people noted the opioid addiction problem this past decade. Just that no one bothered to listen until now. Don't know if the election has anything to do with it or whether it's just reached critical mass.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/10/2017 15:10 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Probably both Steve. Recently, I heard or read (maybe here) that opiate overdose has surpassed automotive deaths. When you mention this to people, most mention someone they know who has died of an overdose or someone who has a serious drug problem.
[Washington Examiner] Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday that President Trump might not have defeated Hillary Clinton in November had the Supreme Court not been a major issue in the 2016 campaign.
In hindsight, the Kentucky Republican said, his decision to block former President Barack Obama from appointing a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia was probably the decisive factor in Trump's victory, given GOP voters' strong reservations about him.
McConnell spoke to the Washington Examiner just after Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to fill a vacant seat on the high court.
#1
Well damn that came back to bite the Pubs in the ass. If they'd have let Obama do it, they'd have Hillary in the White House and they'd be happily into a war with Russia right now. Unintended consequences.
#3
McConnell just living in his own self-centered universe where if there's any credit to be had it is his and any blame goes elsewhere........gee sounds like some Demoshrill.
h/t Jerry Pournelle
...Here are 14 questions that proponents of war in Syria must answer before anyone considers whether military intervention to remove Assad is the best course of action for the American people.
1) What national security interest, rather than pure humanitarian interest, is served by the use of American military power to depose Assad’s regime?
2) How will deposing Assad make America safer?
3) What does final political victory in Syria look like (be specific), and how long will it take for that political victory to be achieved? Do you consider victory to be destabilization of Assad, the removal of Assad, the creation of a stable government that can protect itself and its people without additional assistance from the United States, etc.?
4) What military resources (e.g., ground troops), diplomatic resources, and financial resources will be required to achieve this political victory?
5) How long will it take to achieve political victory?
6) What costs, in terms of lives (both military and civilian), dollars, and forgone options elsewhere as a result of resource deployment in Syria, will be required to achieve political victory?
7) What other countries will join the United States in deposing Assad, in terms of military, monetary, or diplomatic resources?
8) Should explicit congressional authorization for the use of military force in Syria be required, or should the president take action without congressional approval?
9) What is the risk of wider conflict with Russia, given that nation’s presence and stake in Syria, if the United States chooses to invade and depose Assad, a key Russian ally in the Middle East?
10) If U.S. intervention in Syria does spark a larger war with Russia, what does political victory in that scenario look like, and what costs will it entail?
11) Given that Assad has already demonstrated a willingness to use chemical weapons, how should the United States respond if the Assad regime deploys chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against the United States?
12) Assuming the Assad regime is successfully removed from power, what type of government structure will be used to replace Assad, who will select that government, and how will that government establish and maintain stability going forward?
13) Given that a change in political power in the United States radically altered the American position in Iraq in 2009, how will you mitigate or address the risk of a similar political dynamic upending your preferred strategy in Syria, either in 2018, 2020, or beyond?
14) What lessons did you learn from America’s failure to achieve and maintain political victory following the removal of governments in Iraq and Libya, and how will you apply those lessons to a potential war in Syria? I might add that the implicit view espoused in most western publications on the subject is bullshit. There are no Syrian people rebelling against bloody handed tyrant* and his handful of henchmen (if only because there is no such thing as Syrian People). It's Sunni against Shia$, and if the Sunni win - they'll massacre all the Alawites & Christians, and start on the Shia in Lebanon (I wouldn't mind, but I'm not you).
*You wanted to see a bloody-handed tyrant, you should review Assad senior - of course, on his watch rebellions didn't last long. $ Yea, I know, Alawites are not really Shia, but for the Sunnis they're the same thing.
#1
Russia stake in Syria? What is Russia's stake in Russia? What is the U.S. stake in Syria? What is Iran's stake? Who are our enemies in Syria? Who are our friends and who are we allied with?
Tucker Carlson interviewed Lindsay Graham (the ready warrior) the other night and Graham was inarticulate and muddled on the above questions--he sounded like he was drunk. McCain was interviewed by someone (can't remember who now) and he seemed ready to go to war with Syria but presented few good reasons.
[PJ] Among the more disturbing questions emerging from the renewed use of gas by Bashar Assad is whether Barack Obama and his loyal minions (Kerry, Rhodes, Rice, etc.) actually knew the Syrian leader still had chemical weapons, even though they trumpeted the opposite to the American public on numerous occasions. Either they lied or were so extraordinarily credulous they believed -- apparently without verification -- the Syrians had truly rid themselves of those WMDs, in which case Obama -- not Trump -- was Vladimir Putin's personal "useful idiot."
(It may even be time to take a second look at the contention of some that Saddam transferred his chemical weapons to Syria way back when, which would be a surprise vindication of Bush 43.)
Whatever the case, it's "heavy water" under the bridge at this point, but should alert us even more to the absolute necessity of revealing everything known about the also Obama-instigated Iran Deal, all its myriad hidden codicils and clauses that remain mysterious to the citizens of this country in whose name they were allegedly signed. That agreement too could be the product of useful idiocy, a sucker punch from the mullahs. The devil, in this case, is very much in the details, few of which we know, except that the Iranians refused to give a baseline development level for their nuclear weapons program in this first place. In a sense, that made everything else moot.
#2
Among the more disturbing questions emerging from the renewed use of gas by Bashar Assad is whether Barack Obama and his loyal minions (Kerry, Rhodes, Rice, {Hillary] etc.) actually knew the Syrian leader still had chemical weapons, even though they trumpeted the opposite to the American public on numerous occasions. Either they lied or were so extraordinarily credulous [and stupid] they believed -- apparently without verification -- the Syrians had truly rid themselves of those WMDs, in which case Obama -- not Trump -- was Vladimir Putin's personal "useful idiot."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Zero Hedge] For months now we've warned, as have many prominent Republican legislators, that Obamacare is on the verge of collapse (see "Obamacare On "Verge Of Collapse" As Premiums Set To Soar Again In 2017"). 
[PJ] WASHINGTON ‐ Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said House Republicans should not have started with Obamacare as the first major issue to tackle in the new Congress, emphasizing that an infrastructure package and curing the opioid addition crisis would get more bipartisan support.
Please don't forget what you've got on the stove. 
