Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, November 4, 2014


Election Day 2014

 We shall see what we shall see...


Posted by at

5 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/03/obamacare-premium-changes-coming-soon-but-not-by-election-day/

Just after the election...

* MEANING TODAY'S ELECTION... "JUST AFTER TODAY'S ELECTION..."

...insurers will send letters to millions of consumers spelling out changes in premiums for coverage under the health care law.

Why not before?

* THERE'S BEEN SOME REPORTING ON THIS... BUT NOT MUCH. (HELL... I HAVEN'T CONCENTRATED ON IT - THOUGH I'VE MENTIONED IT IN PAST NEWSBITES.)

Under the health law, the federal government is responsible for approving premiums for health plans in 36 states where it is running some or all of the online insurance exchanges through the HealthCare.gov website.

The Department of Health and Human Services told insurers in early September they should notify consumers who hold policies with them of their new premiums for 2015 only after HHS approved the rates.

* HERE'S A CAVEAT THOUGH - AND AN ALL-IMPORTANT ONE:

HHS can’t reject the new rates, only criticize them.

* GET IT...??? (MEANING THIS WAS - IS - A PURELY PARTISAN POLITICAL MISUSE OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY POWER!)

Under the HHS schedule, contracts with the insurers will be signed this week...

(*SMIRK*)

...and insurers’ letters must reach consumers by Nov. 15, the first day of the new enrollment period for coverage under the health law. The final rates may also be published by the administration sooner next week, and consumers are also supposed to be able to go to HealthCare.gov to start browsing them.

* FOLKS... SURELY NONE OF YOU BELIEVE THIS IS MERE COINCIDENCE.

The Obama administration has said the schedule wasn’t decided with an eye to the date of the mid-term elections.

* AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT...

(*SHRUG*)

“The administration will know exactly what health insurance plans cost on Nov. 3, and they should release that information to the public on that day so families can start to plan,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), the ranking Republican on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

* IF AMERICA HAD A HEALTHY, PROPERLY FUNCTIONING MEDIA WOULD IT BE NEWSPAPER EDITORS AND NEWS SHOW PRODUCERS SAYING - PUBLICLY - WHAT ALEXANDER SAID?

* AGAIN... FOLKS... THE BIAS AND PARTISANSHIP OF THE MEDIA AS A WHOLE IS PROBABLY WORTH 20 PERCENTAGE POINTS OR MORE TO THE DEMOCRATS EACH ELECTION!

Administration supporters, meanwhile, have said HHS officials blundered because in many states where rates are publicly accessible online, big insurance plans have signaled their intentions to raise premiums for 2015 by modest amounts – far short of hefty double-digit increases critics of the health law predicted. Some smaller plans are also trying to decrease rates in a bid to win more consumers.

* HEY... IF ANY ADMINISTRATION COULD SHOT ITSELF IN THE FOOT IT'S THIS GANG WHO CAN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT!

(*GUFFAW*)

* AS TO RAISING PREMIUMS BY "MODEST AMOUNTS" IN 2015... I'LL KNOW THIS SUMMER... BUT BEYOND THAT... I WAS PROMISED A $2,500 DECREASE IN HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS WERE OBAMACARE TO BE PASSED! (SO WERE ALL OF YOU... "ON AVERAGE!") INSTEAD, MY RATES WENT UP.

Several states require insurers to notify consumers of changes to their premiums at least 60 days before those changes take effect – or by Nov. 1 for plans starting Jan. 1.

* LAWS SMORES. THIS IS THE AGE OF OBAMA! HEIL OBAMA!

One of those states, Texas, agreed not to enforce its rule this year, relieving the pressure on insurers. But others, including Georgia, Maine, Mississippi and New Hampshire, followed through with the requirements. So did California, Nevada and New York, which are running their own insurance exchanges and so are not subject to HHS rules.

(*THUMBS UP*)

November 4, 2014 at 3:11 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/04/guard-fired-obama-visit/18451405/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatodaycomnation-topstories

Kenneth Tate, the private security guard fired after photographing President Obama at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says the day went from being among the best he had ever had to "a nightmare."

Tate, 49, said the high point of his $42,000-a-year job was when he was assigned to accompany the president during his visit to the CDC's Atlanta headquarters seven weeks ago for a briefing on the Ebola epidemic, reports The New York Times.

An investigation conducted shortly after the president's visit revealed that Tate was carrying a CDC-issued firearm, a violation of Secret Service protocols — and a security lapse that the agency's director at the time, Julia Pierson, never mentioned to the White House, the paper adds.

* KEEP READING... (TATE DIDN'T DISGREGARD THE PROTOCOLS; THE SECRET SERVICE SIMPLY DIDN'T EXPLAIN - LET ALONE ENFORCE - THEM!)

The Washington Post initially reported that Tate had been convicted of crimes, but subsequently corrected the claim.

* NICE... REAL NICE...

Tate was fired about a week after the incident. Tate says he was following company protocol by carrying a weapon and his job that day was to run the service elevator for the president.

* ARMED SECURITY GUARDS CARRY... er... ARMS - RIGHT? (SOUNDS LIKE PROTOCOL TO ME!)

"All of us had weapons ... No one told us anything about (that) we weren't supposed to have our weapons," he said.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

The incident at the CDC later added to a growing debate over whether the Secret Service was failing in its basic duties.

* THERE'S NO DEBATE; THE SECRET SERVICE IS OUT OF CONTROL!

Tate says he was reprimanded by the Secret Service for taking photos of the president and being too close to the motorcade, but at the time he didn't know he was doing anything wrong. His former employer, Professional Security Corporation, didn't report 11Alive's phone calls, but is quoted in the New York Times article as saying Tate's description of the day's events is inaccurate.

* WOW... A CORPORATION CUTTING LOOSE A SECURITY GUARD RATHER THAN RISK ANTAGONIZING THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE... AND PERHAPS EVEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. WOW... WHO EVER WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMING?!

(*SNICKER*)

Tate said if he had to do it all over again, he would never have taken any photos of the president. "To end up like this, I mean, it wasn't worth it," he said. "But if I known ... it would never have happened."

Pierson resigned. Tate, who says he has not found another job, believes he is the real victim. He says he tried to get the cell phone photo of the president later on, outside the CDC.

* FOLKS... IF OBAMA DOESN'T GET THIS GUY HIS JOB BACK...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

November 4, 2014 at 3:19 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OIL_PRICE_SLUMP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-04-07-43-38

Oil prices slumped to multi-year lows on Tuesday after Saudi Arabia cut the price of oil sold to the U.S., a move that is shaking an already volatile market but will likely give the world economy an unexpected stimulus.

* THANK YOU SAUDI ARABIA!

On Monday, Saudi Arabia, OPEC's largest oil producer, cut prices for customers in the U.S. The move has been interpreted as an attempt by the country to maintain its market share in the world's largest economy against supplies from the likes of Canada, Mexico and Venezuela and U.S. shale oil producers.

* WIN-WIN FOR US!

The rise of fracking in the U.S., the return of oil output from Iraq and Libya and Saudi Arabia's willingness to resist production cuts have combined to weigh on prices.

* THE... RISE... OF... FRACKING...

* DEMOCRATS BY AND LARGE OPPOSE FRACKING... RIGHT?

Phil Flynn, senior market analyst for the Price Futures Group, said Saudi Arabia's move was directly aimed at those U.S. producers, who have boosted U.S. oil output to the highest level in decades.

* ON PRIVATE LANDS! (BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW, OBAMA HAS USED EVERY RESOURCE AT HIS DISPOSAL TO FIGHT DRILLING ON FEDERAL LANDS.) (DOES OBAMA STRIKE ANYONE AS "PRO-FRACKING...???") FOLKS... BOTTOM LINE... WHAT YOU AND I SEE AS A HALLELUIAH MOMENT IS PROBABLY BEING FROWNED UPON BY OBAMA.

November 4, 2014 at 3:38 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/articles/quinn-stalls-drilling-in-illinois-1415059733?tesla=y

The boom in shale drilling has led to jobs and income gains in North Dakota, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

(*NOD*)

* AND... INDIRECTLY HAS HELPED ALL OF US BY PRESSURING OPEC!

Illinois could be another gusher, but not if Governor Pat Quinn keeps interfering.

* THAT'S... er... GOV. PAT QUINN (D)

(*WINK*)

In June 2013, Mr. Quinn signed legislation authorizing his Department of Natural Resources to write rules regulating hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, subject to approval by a bipartisan legislative committee. The 120-page law spelled out stringent restrictions on fracking and allowed the agency to fill in the blanks.

Southern Illinois, which overlays the New Albany Shale deposit, was once awash in fossil fuels but production from vertical wells topped off in the 1940s. Employment and population in oil-rich downstate counties like Wayne and White are in decline, so horizontal drilling and fracking could provide a much needed growth boost.

* COULD. SHOULD. BUT WON'T AS LONG AS THE DEMS ARE RUNNING ILLINOIS.

Over the last three years drillers have leased more than a half million acres of land downstate. Woolsey Energy Corporation has invested $100 million. According to the Illinois Manufacturing Association, each well could yield $1.3 million a year in royalties for landowners. A Clay County Assessment Officer report in June estimated that each well would generate $172,111 annually in mineral taxes. Yet while Mr. Quinn wants to make his 2011 income-tax hike permanent, he’s put the kibosh on drilling.

The Department of Natural Resources delayed posting final fracking rules until Aug. 29, and the proposed rules would make fracking difficult.

Drillers would have to complete 28 separate certifications including a cumulative impact statement that the legislature rejected during debate over the law.

Permits would be subject to extensive public hearings that would allow any “adversely affected person” to file objections. (That means anyone.)

The bureaucracy also gave itself authority to establish limits on fracking that are even more stringent than those defined in the law.

In other words, the agency would have carte blanche to block fracking.

The Governor capped his re-election campaign last week by flogging recent decisions by Coyote Logistics and Cronus Chemicals to expand their businesses in Illinois. (To get the jobs Mr. Quinn had to bribe Coyote with $2.5 million in state grants and Cronus with $52 million in handouts.) So we have here a parable of the Quinn economic model:

Squash private investment with taxes and regulation. Then use the taxpayer till to buy jobs and earn political points.

We’ll see if the voters buy it.

* THEY PROBABLY WILL. (WITH ENOUGH DEAD PEOPLE VOTING "AYE!")

November 4, 2014 at 6:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/articles/disparate-impact-rejected-1415059893

The Obama Administration’s disregard for the law took another hit on Monday when a federal judge tossed out its regulation imposing “disparate impact” racial policy on housing.

Disparate impact legal theory relies on racial statistical disparities in lending, housing, or other business practice without having to show evidence of actual discriminatory intent.

* WITHOUT INTENT AND WITHOUT MALICE! IN OTHER WORDS... NATURAL RESULTS.

These pages have long argued that this was never contemplated by the 1968 Fair Housing Act and is also unfair.

* CORRECT ON BOTH COUNTS!

There may be many reasons for a racial disparity in home loans — for example, financial qualifications — that have nothing to do with discrimination. Yet businesses routinely settle when hit by disparate impact claims because the reputational cost of fighting is too great.

* WHICH IS WHY WE NEED A LOSER PAYS SYSTEM!

So it’s big news that Judge Richard Leon has ruled that the 1968 act “unambiguously prohibits only intentional discrimination” and thus the 2013 Housing and Urban Development rule violates the law.

(*STANDING OVATION*)

(Judge Leon noted that when Congress amended unemployment law in 1991, it expressly did not amend housing law to include disparate impact.)

The American Insurance Association and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies brought the legal challenge on behalf of home insurers. Judge Leon wrote that the HUD rule would “have a wide-ranging disruptive effect on the pricing and provision of homeowner’s insurance” and raise “serious concerns regarding widespread federal encroachment upon state insurance regulation.”

Team Obama has gone to great lengths to avoid a Supreme Court ruling on disparate impact in housing, but this year the Justices have taken such a case...

* AND LET'S HOPE A MAJORITY RULE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW! (ALWAYS AN IFFY PROPOSITION, UNFORTUNATELY...)

November 4, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)