Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Tuesday, February 4, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 345)

Independence Day July 4 File Photo. (Photo: StockSnap/People's Pundit Daily)

Independence Day July 4 File Photo. (Photo: StockSnap/People’s Pundit Daily)

A Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 56% of American adults consider Independence Day one of the nation’s most important holidays, second only to Christmas. While that is down from a recent high of 61% a year ago, only 6% view the Fourth of July (July 4th) as one of the least important holidays, while 36% rate it somewhere in between the two.

The poll also finds that Americans still consider the day more than a time for BBQ and fireworks.

On This Day in History

On July 4, 1826, Thomas Jefferson & John Adams died. It was 50 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. John Adams uttered with his last breath: “Jefferson Survives.”

The survey of 1,000 American Adults was conducted on June 28-29, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds American

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, center watches a firing contest of the KPA artillery units at undisclosed location in this photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang on January 5, 2016. (Photo: Reuters)

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, center watches a firing contest of the KPA artillery units at undisclosed location in this photo released by North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang on January 5, 2016. (Photo: Reuters)

North Korea launched a missile on Tuesday that flew for 37 minutes and reached a height of 1,500 miles, breaking its previous record of 30 and 1,000, respectively. The launch, which took place on July 4, the day the United States (US) celebrates its independence, rivaled the prior that was set on Mother’s Day.

Pyongyang claimed on state-run media the launch marked the “final step” in creating a “powerful nuclear state that can strike anywhere on Earth.”

Experts now conclude it could have reached a target 4,000 miles away, putting Alaska in its cross-hairs.

“It appears the test was successful. If launched on a standard angle, the missile could have a range of more than 8,000 km,” said Kim Dong-yub, a military expert at Kyungnam University’s Institute of Far Eastern Studies in Seoul. “But we have to see more details of the new missile to determine if North Korea has acquired ICBM technology.”

While President Donald J. Trump responded on Twitter to the launch, off of social media the White House is taking the threat more seriously than previous administrations.

People watch a TV broadcast of a news report on North Korea's ballistic missile test, at a railway station in Seoul, South Korea, July 4, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

People watch a TV broadcast of a news report on North Korea’s ballistic missile test, at a railway station in Seoul, South Korea, July 4, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

“North Korea has just launched another missile,” President Trump wrote on Twitter in response. “Does this guy have anything better to do with his life? Hard to believe that South Korea and Japan will put up with this much longer. Perhaps China will put a heavy move on North Korea and end this nonsense once and for all!”

In response to the growing threat, the Trump Administration placed two U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups to be positioned off the Korean Peninsula last month for the first time since the 1990s. In addition to an increase in naval force in the region, President Donald J. Trump has requested a military plan from the Pentagon on a scale not yet seen from U.S. leaders.

With “the era of strategic patience over,” President Trump could call on stealth bombers based out of Missouri, which carry the biggest non-nuclear bombs the U.S. has in its inventory. On April 13, 2017, the U.S. dropped an 11-ton Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) fuel-air bomb on Islamic State (ISIS) positions in eastern Afghanistan. The newest munition included in the North Korea plan is even bigger.

A man watches a TV broadcast of a news report on North Korea's ballistic missile test, at a railway station in Seoul, South Korea, July 4, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

A man watches a TV broadcast of a news report on North Korea’s ballistic missile test, at a railway station in Seoul, South Korea, July 4, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

The Pentagon plan involves radar-evading stealth bombers armed with nuke-killing, earth-penetrating bombs. The Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) is a 15-ton bomb was specifically designed to destroy North Korea’s most heavily protected, deepest military facilities in Iran and North Korea.

Meanwhile, Russia and China in a joint statement on Tuesday attempted to de-escalate the situation by proposing that North Korea declare a moratorium on nuclear and missile tests. In return, they proposed the U.S. and South Korea put a pause on conducting large-scale military exercises.

The statement was issued following talks between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who are each scheduled for bilateral meetings with President Trump in Germany on Friday at the G-20 summit. Japan said on Monday they will participate in a trilateral summit on North Korea with the U.S. and South Korea at the G20.

North Korea launched a missile on Tuesday

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said surveillance programs “will not be reauthorized” unless he gets responses and explanations from an intelligence community that has thus far been uncooperative. The chairman’s remarks came during an quick appearance on the Rush Limbaugh Show Monday afternoon while Congress is on break for Independence Day.

Rep. Gwody, who also sits on the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating all things Russia, said holdovers from the Obama Administration slow-walked providing information about spying and unmasking.

“Everyone I speak with, from the NSA, from the CIA, all tell me these programs are vital to our national security,” Rep. Gowdy said. “These will not be reauthorized.”

He vowed to close these constitutionally abusive operations down if the administrative state doesn’t hand over documents his committees have requested. The chairman didn’t give a pass to the Trump Administration, either.

“The head of the NSA is a guy named Mike Rogers. The head of the CIA is my friend, Mike Pompeo,” he said, referring to who is in charge now. With respect to Obama holdovers being responsible, he told the current chiefs: “That’s your problem.”

Chairman Gowdy is largely referring to the powers granted in Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). President Donald J. Trump has been plagued by leaks from deep state members of the intelligence community, even before he publicly exposed how members of his transition team and administration were spied on during the campaign.

Former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice will testify before the House Intelligence Committee about “unmasking” and allegedly incidental collection of intelligence behind closed doors. As People’s Pundit Daily previously reported, the intelligence reports in which members were unmasked by Rice involve personal details unrelated to national security.

The content of the “highly detailed” reports are significant as investigators probe whether the Obama Administration used the cover of the legitimate surveillance to spy on the incoming administration. The increase in searches for and sharing of intelligence skyrocketed during the 2016 presidential election season.

And they aren’t the only targets of unconstitutional surveillance.

As Circa News reported, the Obama Administration admitted at a FISA court hearing that NSA intercept database searches “routinely” violated Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights. It represents the most serious constitutional violations to date by the U.S. intelligence community and undercuts oft-heard arguments about their ability to police themselves and safeguard Americans’ constitutional rights.

“I’m tired of the leaks,” Rep. Gowdy. “They [spying programs] will go away.”

Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Chairman of the

President Barack Obama reacts after realizing he dialed the wrong number while making calls from a local campaign field office during a unscheduled visit, Sunday, Oct. 28, 2012 in Orlando, Fla. (Photo: AP)

President Barack Obama reacts after realizing he dialed the wrong number while making calls from a local campaign field office during a unscheduled visit, Sunday, Oct. 28, 2012 in Orlando, Fla. (Photo: AP)

Time for another trip down Memory Lane to the early years of the Obama Administration.

Two days ago, I wrote about the market-wrecking price controls in ObamaCare. And yesterday, I shared a new study exposing the utter failure of Obama’s Cash-for-Clunkers scheme. Now let’s take a look at the track record of the “Obamaphone.”

Though let’s start by noting that federal subsidies for phone service existed well before Obama took office. He simply took a misguided program and made it bigger. Here’s a concise explanation of the program from a story I shared in 2014.

The Federal Communications Commission program…charges a dollar or two per line on every American’s phone bill. The revenue generated by the “Universal Service Fund fee” is then used to pay select phone companies $9.25 per month for each poor person they sign up for a free phone. …its cost doubled in five years to $1.75 billion in 2011, and in some states, the number of phones given out exceeded the total eligible population.

But since big government is a recipe for big corruption, you won’t be surprised to learn that a bigger program of phone subsidies has produced scandalous levels of waste, fraud, and abuse. The Government Accountability Office has just released a report revealing widespread incompetence and malfeasance in the “Lifeline” program. Here are some highlights from GAO’s one-page summary.

GAO found weaknesses in several areas. For example, Lifeline’s structure relies on over 2,000 Eligible Telecommunication Carriers that are Lifeline providers to implement key program functions, such as verifying subscriber eligibility. This complex internal control environment is susceptible to risk of fraud, waste, and abuse as companies may have financial incentives to enroll as many customers as possible.

Yes, you read correctly. The private companies that are mooching off this program are in charge of determining eligibility, even though they get more handouts by signing up more recipients.

As you might expect, this is a green light for massive fraud.

Based on its matching of subscriber to benefit data, GAO was unable to confirm whether about 1.2 million individuals of the 3.5 million it reviewed, or 36 percent, participated in a qualifying benefit program, such as Medicaid, as stated on their Lifeline enrollment application.

Readers are welcome to plow their way through GAO’s full 89-page report, but news reports have teased out the most important details.

Here are some excerpts from a story in the Washington Times.

The controversial “Obamaphone” program, which pays for cellphones for the poor, is rife with fraud, according to a new government report released Thursday that found more than a third of enrollees may not even be qualified. Known officially as the Lifeline Program, the phone giveaway became a symbol of government waste in the previous administration. …the program has stashed some $9 billion in assets in private bank accounts rather than with the federal treasury, further increasing risks and depriving taxpayers of the full benefit of that money. “…everything that could go wrong is going wrong,” said Mrs. McCaskill, ranking Democrat on the Senate’s chief oversight committee and who is a former state auditor in Missouri. “We’re currently letting phone companies cash a government check every month with little more than the honor system to hold them accountable, and that simply can’t continue,” she said. …More than 5,500 people were found to be enrolled for two phones, while the program was paying for nearly 6,400 phones for persons the government has listed as having died. Investigators also submitted fraudulent applications to see what would happen, and 12 of the 19 phone carriers they applied to approved a phone.

The Daily Caller’s report also highlighted the program’s rampant fraud.

A massive portion of Obamaphone recipients are receiving the benefit after lying on their applications, according to a new 90-page report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). An undercover sting operation showed ineligible applications were approved 63 percent of the time, and a review that found that 36 to 65 percent of beneficiaries in various categories had lied in easily-detectable ways but were approved anyway. The fraud reached unheard-of proportions because the Federal Communications Commission let the task of screening for eligibility fall to phone companies that profit off of enrolling as many people as possible. …All someone has to do to apply for free cell phone service is say that they are on another welfare program, such as food stamps or disability, known as SSI. But nationwide, “only 35.5 percent of people claiming eligibility based on SSI could actually be confirmed as eligible,” the GAO found. …Special interests have aggressively employed a bootleggers-and-Baptists model, with companies who profit greasing the wheels of government with donations and influence-peddling and using poor people as props in marketing campaigns. …The wife of the CEO of TracFone, the largest beneficiary of Obamaphones, was a mega-fundraiser for former President Barack Obama. …And a Pew Research Center report found that the problem of lack of access to technology is far less than it once was, the GAO noted. The FCC’s own data shows that “millions of Lifeline-eligible households are obtaining voice service without Lifeline,” while the fraud rates show that many of the people who do sign up are wealthier than those who don’t.

Again, keep in mind that subsidized telephone service isn’t an Obama invention.

He merely built upon a bad idea that existed for decades.

But also keep in mind that the waste, fraud, and abuse in the Obamaphone program is an inherent part of big government.

There’s fraud in the Medicare program. There’s fraud in the EITC program. There’s fraud in food stamps. There’s fraud in Medicaid. There’s fraud in the disability program. There’s welfare fraud.

But I don’t want to merely pick on what are perceived to be Democrat programs.

There’s also lots of waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon.

Simply stated, when you give away free money, people will do dodgy things to get some of it.

Federal subsidies for phone service, an Obamaphone,

Supporters of a single payer health system rally outside the White House in September of 2009. (Photo: AP)

Supporters of a single payer health system rally outside the White House in September of 2009. (Photo: AP)

Writing about the sub-par single-payer, government-run healthcare system in the United Kingdom (UK), Paul Krugman infamously claimed that,“In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false.”

I’ve pointed out that there are plenty of “scare stories” about the National Health Service that are completely true. And completely scary.

But don’t take my word for it. Just click here or here if you want examples.

To be fair, there surely are horror stories from every health care system. Humans are imperfect, after all.

But I suspect shoddy care is more common when healthcare providers get a salary from the government. Under such an arrangement, patients are a burden rather than a source of revenue.

Set that aside, however, because there’s a feature of the U.K.’s single-payer system that is reprehensible and it has nothing to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of care.

The UK-based Daily Mail reports on this very disturbing case.

The parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard are ‘utterly distraught’ and facing fresh heartbreak after losing their final appeal in the European Court of Human Rights. Chris Gard, 32, and Connie Yates, 31, wanted to take their 10-month-old son – who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage – to the US to undergo a therapy trial. …the couple, from Bedfont, west London, raised almost £1.4million so they could take their son to America but a series of courts ruled in favour of the British doctors. …the ECHR rejected a last-ditch plea and their ‘final’ decision means the baby’s life support machine will be switched off. …It comes after a High Court judge in April ruled against a trip to America and in favour of Great Ormond Street doctors. …Specialists in the US have offered a therapy called nucleoside. …barrister Richard Gordon QC, who leads Charlie’s parents’ legal team, …said parents should be free to make decisions about their children’s treatment unless any proposal poses a risk of significant harm. …Charlie’s parents have raised nearly £1.4million to pay for therapy in America.

Ian Tuttle of National Review explains what’s really at stake in this case.

Any day now, they’ll kill Charlie Gard. …Charlie’s parents have raised enough money from private donations to fund the experimental treatment, but the court decision prohibits his removal to the U.S. …successive courts in the United Kingdom and in Europe simultaneously found that Connie Yates and Chris Gard had devoted themselves unhesitatingly to their son’s welfare for ten months, and also that Yates and Gard could not be trusted to act in their son’s best interests. …pertinent to this case, under what circumstances should the tightest bonds of affection — those between parent and child — be subordinated to the judgment of the state?

The part that astounds me (in a very bad way) is that the courts won’t allow the parents to bring their son to the United States (US).

Their not asking or expecting the taxpayers to pick up the cost. They’ve raised money to cover the experimental treatment. Yet the government won’t let them try to save their son’s life.

Even if the doctors are right and the experimental treatment fails, why shouldn’t the parents be allowed to do the medical equivalent of throwing a Hail Mary at the end of a football game?

I can’t even imagine what the parents must be thinking. If some government official said I had to allow one of my kids to die and that I didn’t have the right to try anything and everything to avert that outcome, I don’t even want to think of what I might do.

I used to think policies such as asset forfeiture or IRS abuses were the worst form of government thuggery. But

Government-run healthcare in the United Kingdom (UK),

Construction workers are seen at a new building site in Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S. June 2, 2016. (Photo: Reuters)

Construction workers are seen at a new building site in Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S. June 2, 2016. (Photo: Reuters)

Construction spending in May was flat as weakness in residential offered little clarification to what has been mixed housing market data for the spring of 2017. Spending came in at a flat 0.0, up from revised -0.7% for April and missing the 0.5% median forecast.

Residential spending was down 0.6% overall and declines were across the board in single-family homes, residential improvements and multi-family units.

A 0.7% declines in private non-residential spending–including transportation, manufacturing, and commercial–was offset offset by public non-residential, fueled by a strong 5.1% increase in education after two months of declines. Roads fell 0.9% for a second straight month.

Construction spending in May was flat as

Workers assemble built-in appliances at the Whirlpool manufacturing plant in Cleveland, Tennessee August 21, 2013. (Photo: Reuters)

Workers assemble built-in appliances at the Whirlpool manufacturing plant in Cleveland, Tennessee August 21, 2013. (Photo: Reuters)

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) said its closely-watched manufacturing index (PMI) came in at 57.9 in June, beating the 55.1 consensus forecast. The reading is the strongest gain since August 2014.

“Comments from the panel generally reflect expanding business conditions,” Timothy R. Fiore, Chair of the ISM Manufacturing Business Survey Committee said, adding that “new orders, production, employment, backlog and exports all growing in June compared to May and with supplier deliveries and inventories struggling to keep up with the production pace.”

New orders came in at a very strong 63.5, while production was also very strong at 62.4. Export orders, at 59.5, are showing strength and import orders rose to a solid 54.0. Inventories, at 49.0, showed little change.

Employment and supplier deliveries showed the most significant change and improvement. Employment, at 57.2%, gained 3.7% from the 53.5% in May. The Supplier Deliveries index came in at 57%, a 3.9% gain from the 53.1% in May.

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) said

Vehicles traded in for the government's Cash for Clunkers program are seen at a lot owned by Ira Toyota in Danvers, Mass. Monday, Aug. 24, 2009. It was a race to the finish for dealers and customers alike as the Cash for Clunkers program headed into its final lap on Monday. Over the weekend, car dealers across the country watched their lots grow empty as crowds rushed to trade in gas guzzlers after the government said that the $3 billion rebate program would end at 8 p.m. EDT Monday, two weeks earlier than expected. (Photo: AP)

Vehicles traded in for the government’s Cash for Clunkers program are seen at a lot owned by Ira Toyota in Danvers, Mass. Monday, Aug. 24, 2009. It was a race to the finish for dealers and customers alike as the Cash for Clunkers program headed into its final lap on Monday. Over the weekend, car dealers across the country watched their lots grow empty as crowds rushed to trade in gas guzzlers after the government said that the $3 billion rebate program would end at 8 p.m. EDT Monday, two weeks earlier than expected. (Photo: AP)

Keynesian economics is fundamentally misguided because it focuses on how to encourage more spending when the real goal should be to figure out policies that result in more income.

This is one of the reasons I wish people focused more on “gross domestic income,” which is a measure of how we earn our national income (i.e., wages, small business income, corporate profits, etc) rather than on “gross domestic product,” which is a measure of how our national income gets allocated (consumption, investment, government, etc).

Simply stated, Keynesians put the cart before the horse. Consumption doesn’t drive growth, it’s a consequence of growth.

But let’s set all that aside because we have new evidence that Keynesian stimulus schemes aren’t even very good at artificially goosing consumption.

Three economists (from MIT and Tex A&M) have crunched the numbers and discovered that Obama’s Cash-for-Clunkers scheme back in 2009 was a failure even by Keynesian standards.

The abstract of the study tells you everything you need to know.

The 2009 Cash for Clunkers program aimed to stimulate consumer spending in the new automobile industry, which was experiencing disproportionate reductions in demand and employment during the Great Recession. Exploiting program eligibility criteria in a regression discontinuity design, we show nearly 60 percent of the subsidies went to households who would have purchased during the two-month program anyway; the rest accelerated sales by no more than eight months. Moreover, the program’s fuel efficiency restrictions shifted purchases toward vehicles that cost on average $5,000 less. On net, Cash for Clunkers significantly reduced total new vehicle spending over the ten month period.

This is remarkable. At the time, the most obvious criticism of the scheme was that it would simply alter the timing of purchases.

And scholars the following year confirmed that the program didn’t have any long-run impact.

But now we find out that there was impact, but it was negative. Here’s the most relevant graph from the study.

It shows actual vehicle spending and estimated spending in the absence of the program.

For readers who like wonky details, here’s the explanatory text for Figure 7 from the study.

The effect of the program on cumulative new vehicle spending by CfC-eligible households is shown in Figure 7. The figure shows actual spending and estimates of counterfactual spending if there had been no CfC program. Cumulative spending under the CfC program was larger than counterfactual spending for the months immediately after the program. However, by February 1 the counterfactual expenditures becomes larger and by April has grown to be $4.0 billion more than actual expenditures under the program. It is difficult to make the case that the brief acceleration in spending justifies the loss of $4.0 billion in revenues to the auto industry, for two reasons. First, we calculate that in order to justify the estimated longer-term reduction in cumulative spending to boost spending for a few months, one would need a discount rate of 208 percent. Given the expected (and realized) duration of the recession, it seems difficult to argue in favor of such a discount rate. Second, we note that Cash for Clunkers seems especially unattractive compared to a counterfactual stimulus policy that left out the environmental component, which also would have accelerated purchases for some households without reducing longer-term spending.

By the way, the authors point out that Cash-for-Clunkers wasn’t even good environmental policy.

One could also argue that this decline in industry revenue over less than a year could be justified to the extent the program offered a cost-effective environmental benefit. Unfortunately, the existing evidence overwhelmingly indicates that this program was a costly way of reducing environmental damage. For example, Knittel [2009] estimates that the most optimistic implied cost of carbon reduced by the program is $237 per ton, while Li et al. [2013] estimate the cost per ton as between $92 and $288. These implied cost of carbon figures are much larger than the social costs of carbon of $33 per ton (in 2007 dollars) estimated by the IWG on the Social Cost of Carbon [Interagency Working Group, 2013].

So let’s see where we stand. The program was bad fiscal policy, bad economic policy, and bad environmental policy.

The trifecta of Obamanomics. No wonder the United States suffered the weakest recovery of the post-WWII era.

Three economists have crunched the numbers: Barack Obama’s

Protestors at the Sacramento Convention Center show support for the state's single-payer healthcare legislation. (Photo: AP)

Protestors at the Sacramento Convention Center show support for the state’s single-payer healthcare legislation. (Photo: AP)

When discussing government involvement in the health sector, I usually focus on the budgetary implications. Which makes sense since I’m a fiscal wonk and programs such as MedicareMedicaid, and ObamaCare are diverting ever-larger amounts of money from the economy’s productive sector.

I also look at the tax side of the fiscal equation and complain about how the healthcare exclusion mucks up the tax code.

Though it’s important to understand that government involvement doesn’t just cause fiscal damage. All these programs and policies contribute to the “third-party payer” problem, which exists when people make purchases with other people’s money. Such a system is a recipe for inefficiency and rising prices since consumers generally don’t care about cost and providers have no incentive to be efficient. And since government figures show that nearly 90% of health care expenditures are financed by someone other than the consumer, this is a major problem. One that I’ve written about manymany times.

But there’s another economic problem caused by government – price controls on insurance – that is very important. Indeed, the fights over “community rating” and “pre-existing conditions” are actually fights about whether politicians or competition should determine prices.

Simply stated, politicians want insurance companies to ignore risk when selling insurance. They want artificially low premiums for old people, so they restrict differences in premiums based on age (i.e., a community rating, enforced by a guaranteed-issue mandate), even though older people are statistically far more likely to incur health-related expenses. They also want artificially low premiums for sick people, so the crowd in Washington requires that they pay the same or similar premiums as healthy people (i.e., a pre-existing conditions mandate), even though they are statistically far more likely to incur health-related expenses.

Set aside that the entire purpose of insurance is to guard against risk. Instead, let’s focus on what happens when these types of price controls are imposed. For all intents and purposes, insurance companies are in a position where they have to over-charge young and healthy people in order to subsidize the premiums of old and sick people. That’s sounds great if you’re old and sick, but young and healthy people respond by choosing not to purchase insurance. And as fewer and fewer young and healthy people are in the system, that forces premiums ever higher. This is what is meant by a “death spiral.”

The pro-intervention crowd has a supposed solution to this problem. Just impose a mandate that requires the young and healthy people to buy insurance. Which is part of Obamacare, so there is a method to that bit of madness. But since the penalties are not sufficiently punitive (and also because the government simply isn’t very competent), the system hasn’t worked. And to make matters worse, Obamacare exacerbated the third-party payer problem, thus leading to higher costs, which ultimately leads to higher premiums, which further discourages people from buying health insurance.

So how do we solve this problem?

One of my colleagues at the Cato Institute, Michael Cannon, is a leading expert on these issues. And he’s also a leading pessimist. Here’s some of what he wrote a week ago as part of a column on the Senate bill to modify Obamacare.

ObamaCare’s “community rating” price controls are causing premiums to rise, coverage to get worse for the sick and insurance markets to collapse across the country. The Senate bill would modify those government price controls somewhat, allowing insurers to charge 64-year-olds five times what they charge 18-year-olds (as opposed to three times, under current law). But these price controls would continue to make a mess of markets and cause insurers to flee.

But he wasn’t enamored with the House proposal, either. Here are some excerpts from his analysis earlier this year of that proposal.

The House leadership bill retains the very ObamaCare regulations that are threatening to destroy health insurance markets and leave millions with no coverage at all. ObamaCare’s community-rating price controls literally penalize insurers who offer quality coverage to patients with expensive conditions, creating a race to the bottom in insurance quality. Even worse, they have sparked a death spiral that has caused insurers to flee ObamaCare’s Exchanges nationwide… The leadership bill would modify ObamaCare’s community-rating price controls by expanding the age-rating bands (from 3:1 to 5:1) and allowing insurers to charge enrollees who wait until they are sick to purchase coverage an extra 30 percent (but only for one year). It is because the House leadership would retain the community-rating price controls that they also end up retaining many other features of the law.

Though existing law also is terrible, largely because of Obamacare. Here are passages from Michael’s column in the Hill.

ObamaCare’s core provisions are the “community rating” price controls and other regulations that (supposedly) end discrimination against patients with preexisting conditions. How badly do these government price controls fail at that task? Community rating is the reason former president Bill Clinton called ObamaCare “the craziest thing in the world” where Americans “wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half.” Community rating is why women age 55 to 64 have seen the highest premium increases under ObamaCare. It is the principal reason ObamaCare has caused overall premiums to double in just four years. …Why? Because community rating forces insurance companies to cover the sick below cost, which simply isn’t sustainable. The only solution ObamaCare supporters offer is to keep throwing more money at the problem — which also isn’t sustainable.

Anyone who wants to really understand this issue should read all of Michael’s work on health care issues.

But if you don’t have the time or energy for that, here’s an image that I found on Reddit‘s libertarian page. Using not-so-subtle sarcasm, it tells you everything you need to know about why price controls ultimately will kill health insurance.

P.S. None of this suggests we should feel sorry for health insurance companies. They got in bed with the previous administration and endorsed Obamacare, presumably because they figured a mandate (especially with all the subsidies) would create captive customers. Now that it’s clear that the mandate isn’t working very well and that increased Medicaid dependency accounts for almost all of the additional “insurance coverage,” they’re left with an increasingly dysfunctional system. As far as I’m concerned, they deserve to lose money. And I definitely don’t want them to get bailout money.

Politicians want insurance companies to ignore risk

CNN CEO Jeff Zucker. (Photo: Reuters)

CNN CEO Jeff Zucker. (Photo: Reuters)

In this edition of Fake New Watch, where we highlight some of the biggest journalistic bombs of the week, the Fake News Watch Weekly Winner is CNN. The network had what was likely the worst two weeks in their history, beginning with them being forced to retract and admit a story published on the website was blatantly false.

The fake news story, which is no longer available online, claimed that the Senate Intelligence Committee and U.S. Treasury Department were investigating a Russian investment fund with ties to individuals on Team Trump.

Using a single anonymous source, Thomas Frank at CNN wrote in the now retracted fake news article:

The source said the Senate intelligence committee is investigating the Russian fund in connection with its examination of discussions between White House adviser Jared Kushner and the head of a prominent Russian bank. The bank, Vnesheconombank, or VEB, oversees the fund, which has ties to several Trump advisers. Both the bank and the fund have been covered since 2014 by sanctions restricting U.S. business dealings

CNN continued in the now-retracted fake news article:

Separately, Steve Mnuchin, now Treasury Secretary, said in a January letter that he would look into the Jan. 16 meeting between the fund’s chief executive and Anthony Scaramucci, a member of the transition team’s executive committee and a fundraiser and adviser for Trump’s presidential campaign… Two Democratic senators had asked Treasury to investigate whether Scaramucci promised to lift sanctions — a policy shift that would help the fund attract more international investment to Russia.

The “two Democratic senators” pushed (more like planted) the fake news story and the investigation was based on a fake “meeting” Mr. Scaramucci supposedly had with the investment fund executive. They’ve been identified as Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

CNN also wrote in the now retracted fake news article:

Scaramucci, the founder of SkyBridge Capital, minimized his January meeting with [Kirill] Dmitriev in the resort town of Davos, Switzerland, at the celebrated annual gathering of the World Economic Forum. Scaramucci had met Dmitriev at previous Davos meetings, although at the gathering in January, Scaramucci was expecting to be named White House liaison to the business community.

The admission by CNN only came in the wake of a Breitbart News investigation, which also revealed the Treasury Department closed the matter after it was “determined to be without merit.”

“On June 22, 2017, CNN.com published a story connecting Anthony Scaramucci with investigations into the Russian Direct Investment Fund,” CNN said in a statement under fire. “That story did not meet CNN’s editorial standards and has been retracted. Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologizes to Mr. Scaramucci.”

The admission came shortly before James O’Keefe and Project Veritas released several undercover videos in a series dubbed American Pravda, which aims to expose media bias at the now scandal-plagued CNN.

In the first video, CNN producer John Bonifield openly admitted the Russia narrative was “bull$#!t,” little more than a ratings stunt by CEO Jeff Zucker. Bonifield, who has worked at CNN for nearly 15 years, said Zucker told senior producers and staff in a meeting to move on from covering the climate accords and get back to Russia.

“We don’t have any giant proof,” Bonifield said. “And so I think the President is probably right to say, like, look, you’re witch-hunting me.”

In the second video, Van Jones, a former Obama advisor and top CNN commentator, told the undercover Project Veritas reporter that the “Russia thing is just a big nothing burger.”

Defenders dismissed Mr. Bonifield as a “medical” producer and Van Jones as a commentator. Then, a third video was released featuring Jimmy Carr, an Associate Producer at CNN New Day. Carr called American voters “stupid as $h!t” and admitted “90% of us are on board” with anti-Trump views.

“We all recognize he is a clown, that he is hilariously unqualified for this,” Carr said. “He’s really bad for this and he does not have America’s best interest at heart.”

Incredibly, the week wasn’t over yet.

On Friday, CNN executives reportedly went into a “panic” after “The Lead” hosted by Jake Tapper aired a fake National Enquirer cover. It came during a segment on MSNBC host Joe Scarborough’s accusation that President Trump threatened him with an Enquirer hit piece if he and Mika Brzezinski did not apologize.

The New York Post’s “Page Six” reported the fake cover shown on air had the headline “Heidi Cruz: Betrayed by Cheating Husband!” It “promised details on a ‘sordid threesome, sleazy love letters and sensational photo proof.’”

But the Post pointed to sources at the Enquirer claiming the fake news cover “has never appeared on the National Enquirer,” and “the cover is — literally — fake news.”

Neither Mr. Tapper nor CNN have ever responded to emails released by WikiLeaks showing the Democratic National Committee (DNC) giving staff suggestions and questions to help their narrative. The emails, which also included staffers who work for fellow-anchor Wolf Blizter, were communications before interviews with then-candidate Trump, Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina.

In one, the subject line reads “Trump Questions for CNN.”

That full story is here. The cached version of the retracted fake news story can be found here.

There’s little wonder why President Trump labeled CNN the “very fake news” network.

The Fake News Weekly Winner is CNN.

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial