The official announcement is coming around 11:35 (or whenever his Majesty deigns to reveal Himself to the public) but it looks like he's going to pretend to have the power to ignore parts of the law. Again.

The plan, which the official said could be implemented without passing legislation, would allow insurance companies to extend "substandard'' plans in 2014 only if they are already in existence. Unlike the House bill, the administration plan wouldn't allow insurance companies to offer such plans to new customers.

The policy also would require insurance companies, if they extend such policies, to notify customers that alternative policies might be available under the government exchange and to tell them what benefits they wouldn't be getting if they remained with their current plans.

The Democratic official said he believed the proposal would satisfy many Democrats who have been considering voting for the House bill.

Basically, this looks like a hybrid of proposals by Representative Fred Upton of Michigan and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana was floating. Letting the Landrieu plan actually get a vote in the Senate would mean that there was a co-equal branch of government who had some say in the law making process and his Majesty can not abide that notion taking hold.

As always, the Devil will be in the details. Can insurance companies keep these policies going when they've already made the logistical switch to the ObamaCare policies? What about companies that have pulled out of states entirely?

This will be an effort to deflect blame to the insurance companies, "hey we let them, it's not our fault that they won't sell them to you or that they now cost a ton more".

I doubt it will work. Obama's brand it too damaged and ultimately he made the promise, not insurance companies.

On the upside, if enough people can take advantage of this it shoots a hole in the middle of the central pillar of ObamaCare...creating a large and balanced risk pool for all the previous uninsuables now being covered. So...death spiral here we come!

This is basically a punt not a fix. It can't be a fix because what was happening (people being forced into the exchanges) was and is a necessary element to make it work. This is a political ploy that creates a HUGE policy problem and it's not likely to solve the political problem either.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:47 AM | Comments (300)
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

While we wait for the ObamaCare disaster of the day (which is now scheduled for 11:35 Obama Time), there's a fight going on on the right for the future political and policy direction of the right. It's one we should all be taking part in and evaluating.

One of the go-to moves for some conservatives on tax policy is the "child tax credit". It combines a couple of things conservatives tend to like...lowering people's tax bills and helping families.

Sen. Mike Lee advocated for an expanded child tax credit in his recent speech at the Heritage Foundation outlining what he sees as the future conservative governing agenda.

AEI economics writer Jim Pethokoukis picked up the theme and Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review has been a long time supporter of the idea.

There has been pushback on the right against the idea of targeted credits vs. across the board cuts. Writing in The Federalist, Scott Lincicome makes the case against approach on economic and political grounds since it essentially co-opts liberal tactics for conservative ends.

Furthermore, conservatives (and libertarians) repeatedly and rightly deride liberal policies which promote preferred classes or lifestyles over others and thereby pit citizen groups against each other for a place at Uncle SamÂ’s feeding trough. They also constantly preach clarity and consistency in fiscal policy, including a streamlined and simplified US tax code. Promoting and expanding a direct tax subsidy for child-rearing would fly in the face of these principles, only with a right-leaning, pro-family gloss. And while such a gloss might be laudable, itÂ’s entirely inconsistent with the classic conservative/libertarian message that the State is too intrusive and unwieldy, and that Uncle Sam shouldnÂ’t be, and isnÂ’t capable of, dictating the intimate details of our daily lives.

Instead, a far more ideologically consistent (and, as noted above, economically efficient) policy would be one which eliminates and streamlines the tax code to make it easier for all Americans, not just parents, to pursue happiness and live their lives as fully as possible

There are plenty of people on the right who are quite comfortable with a large federal government, they simply want to see it used for conservative ends. While I agree that pro-family policies are preferable to their liberal alternatives, the real go should be minimizing the role of the federal government in people's lives, everyone's lives. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers that conservatives favor any more than liberals should be. Once you start arguing that bribing people with their own money (while empowering the federal beast) is a key to winning elections, you're simply engaging in a bidding war the liberals will always win.

Read the whole piece for alternatives on how to reach the same goals but through broad-based policies.

Personally, my goal is to make the government smaller and less invasive for everyone, not just a chosen few. That's the key to maximizing individual happiness and liberty.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:57 AM | Comments (211)
Post contains 501 words, total size 4 kb.

• Goldberg: Obamacare Schadenfreudarama
  
• Remember When Nancy Pelosi Wouldn't Tolerate Sloppy Healthcare Rollouts? Youtube Does.
  
• Endangered Democrats Flee Obamacare Wreckage
  
• A Noble Lie? Why Obamacare Is Worse Than A Case Of Pathological Altruism
  
• Trey Gowdy Continues To Entertain
  
• Federal Case Could Make It Easier For Victims To Defend Themselves Against Civil Forfeiture
  
• Ezekiel Emanuel Blames Fox News For Obamacare Disaster
  
• Obama Won't Make Insurers His Punching Bag Because He Needs Them
  
• Secret Service Agents Removed From Obama Detail For Harassing Women
  
• John McCain Jumps On The Total Repeal Bandwagon
  
• Editor Exodous Continues At The New York Times
  
• VDH: Not So Superpower
  
• Russia To Help Iran Build A Second Nuclear Reactor
  
• Republicans Need To Make Obamacare The Story Until Next November
  
• Why Join Dems As They Keep Digging The Obamacare Ditch?
  
• Obama's Credibility Going Up In Smoke
  
• Entrepreneur Trying To Establish Property Rights In Space To Spur Private Investment
  
• The Only 'Happy' Obamacare Enrollees Seem To Be Those Who Donated To Obama's Campaign
  
• Don't Sleep With This Guys Girlfriend
  

Did you guys see Christina Hendrick's red carpet nip slip?

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 04:57 AM | Comments (273)
Post contains 185 words, total size 3 kb.

Enough with the Lorem Ipsum. I needed some filler content there for a minute, as I missed Gabe's late-night email asking for a stand-in.

This piece by Jonah Goldberg is good, but he needs to learn the AoSHQ lexicon. It's called a schadenboner, Jonah.

If you canÂ’t take some joy, some modicum of relief and mirth, in the unprecedentedly spectacular beclowning of the president, his administration, its enablers, and, to no small degree, liberalism itself, then you need to ask yourself why youÂ’re following politics in the first place. Because, frankly, this has been one of the most enjoyable political moments of my lifetime.

Absolutely. Read the whole thing. And in that spirit:

[ RSS]

[iTunes]

Posted by: andy at 04:08 AM | Comments (274)
Post contains 137 words, total size 2 kb.

Since all y'all have been slacking off in the ONT all week, I figure hey why not me too. So just be grateful to get even this mockery of a sham of an ONT.

Great Dumb Liberal Theories

The Tea Party Is Really All About Alger Hiss

No Whitaker Chambers (and Joe McCarthy) Are to Blame for The Tea Party

The NRA is Why People Hate the TSA

The Failure of ObamaCare is All the Fault of Libertarian Michael Cannon

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:41 PM | Comments (613)
Post contains 311 words, total size 4 kb.

Every funny thing has some truth in it. This one has more truth than funny.

If you can hire a vet, hire a vet. They rarely disappoint.

If you haven't read this, read it. It will make you smile. DrewM pointed out the honor of "piping ashore" is "reserved for flag officers, Commanding officers of other ships, installations or commands and high ranking VIPs (like POTUS, SecDef and Bud)."

Mostly Bud.

UPDATE: Me and my lack of attribution manners. The story about Bud was linked on FB by my Splitter friends MCPO and some cheesehead in Wisconsin (Brewfan). And the PSA from Michael Broderick, who happens to be a close, personal friend of mine.

UPDATE 2: Oh my. Idrivewarships posted video of Bud being piped ashore. (tipped by Andy, @JennsLenz on twitter)

below the thing..

damn more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:32 PM | Comments (273)
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

Delicious.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday will convene a special meeting of the Senate Democratic caucus and senior White Officials to discuss the troubled rollout of ObamaCare.

Reid on Wednesday told reporters he would not answer questions about the hundreds of thousands of insurance policy cancellations or other issues until he has further discussions with the White House.

The Clumsy God continues to fall.

Charles C.W. Cooke tries to answer a question that occurred to Drew today: is this the greatest domestic policy fiasco in all of American history?

This is no partisan overstatement. This is indeed historic. Whether this is the biggest debacle in all of our history or not, it's top three -- and you can argue its place in that list as you like.

Cooke casts about for similar debacles, including Prohibition. But he finds that the last century's greatest domestic fiascos were passed on a bipartisan basis, and thus did not harm one party more than the other.

To find a time in which the central agenda of one party has been as thoroughly discredited as the Democrats’ may be if Obamacare collapses into itself, one probably has to go back to the second decade of the 20th century. As the election of 1920 approached, Americans found that they had grown exhausted and disturbed by the egregious domestic agenda that their president’s utopian internationalism had gradually imposed. Woodrow Wilson’s “war socialism,” which involved stern rationing, crippling censorship, and a thoroughgoing distaste for the individualism that had marked America’s rise, proved to be unpopular enough to render Warren Harding’s promise of a “return to normalcy” as music to voters’ ears. In 1920, Harding won 60 percent of the vote — 37 states to his opponent’s eleven — and he used his mandate to effectively repeal the Wilson era and to discredit the Democratic party for a decade.

How bad is it right now? Obama's weary minions have taken to indulging in fantasy speculation-- how well would Obama be doing now if he hadn't flamed out on Obamacare?

And, Open Thread. Knocking off early tonight.

Posted by: Ace at 01:55 PM | Comments (254)
Post contains 370 words, total size 3 kb.

But We Can Still Totally Make Your Private Health Decisions For You

So this multimillion dollar piece of sophisticated programming can't count customer transactions. The way even the cheapest and most basic Casio cash register does. Okay.

Yes, it's obviously a lie: but it's a lie that still shatters any claim they may have to elementary competence. First, because they are claiming they can't count. Ouch. I want them to handle my complex insurance?

But also the lie itself is an act of incompetence at covering butt. Because it is far worse than telling the truth about how messed up everything is.

The big Obamacare website story about how everything is f*cked up is already out there. It's making the rounds and is generally well-understood. One cannot ruin a flaming train wreck more. Better to say the site is not functioning. That would be believable and really not change the situation too much, while buying some time.

But no, HHS says things are going swimmingly and decides to invent this story about just not being able to sum up the number of actual sales. The way a child running a lemonade stand can.

It's counting. Nothing fancy. 1, 2, 3...follow the trend here. We have machines for this, but we don't really need them.

How about asking the financial agent that processes the money? Usually these places are pretty good about counting transactions. You could say it is a vital part of their core mission.

The truth must be worse than we can imagine, if it produced this embarrassing display of flopsweat.

Thanks to John E.

Posted by: LauraW at 02:32 PM | Comments (422)
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

Sure why not.

The Articles of Impeachment has four different sections. The first calls for HolderÂ’s official removal because of his failure to comply with congressional subpoenas relating to Operation Fast and Furious. Holder has been voted on a bipartisan basis into both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for his failure to comply with the Fast and Furious subpoenas from House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).

The second section of the Articles of Impeachment deals with Holder’s refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Controlled Substances Act, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. The third section calls for Holder’s impeachment on the grounds that he has refused to prosecute any IRS officials involved in the “scandal of unauthorized disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors.”

The fourth section of the Articles of Impeachment goes after Holder for his involvement in the targeting of reporters. Holder testified under oath on May 15, 2013, the resolution states, that he “he was neither involved in nor had heard of a potential prosecution of the press.” Three days later, though, Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) “released documents naming journalist James Rosen as a co-conspirator in an alleged violation of the Espionage Act.” Holder later confirmed to Congress that he had in fact “approved a search warrant on James Rosen.”

I think the part about DOMA is ill-founded-- I think the AG has discretion in such matters. But the rest of it, sure.

Posted by: Ace at 01:23 PM | Comments (223)
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

Although the Administration is pushing the 106,185 figure -- which includes state exchange sign-ups, and people who "picked a plan" on the federal website, but did not actually enroll in it -- an AP reporter says the actual number of people who enrolled on the federal website is... less than 27,000.

Oops: My bad. That "less than 27,000" isn't even the number of people who enrolled in Obamacare on the federal website. It's still the number of people who have "picked a plan" on the federal website.

HealthCare.gov has performed even worse than expected. Fewer than 27,000 people selected a plan through the website, compared with roughly 79,000 who picked a plan through the 15 state-based insurance exchanges. Unofficial estimates leaked earlier this week suggested the federal website had done slightly better.

Their claim is that 106,185 people have enrolled in Obamacare, in October.

But remember, they previously announced their intention to, get this, lie about the numbers, by including people who hadn't actually enrolled in anything -- but had simply gotten to the stage where they picked a policy (but did not actually enroll in it).

As you know, they were expecting around 492,000 enrollments in October.

Press Release: More details here, but not important details, the sort of details Allah wonders about:

There’s no real suspense about the topline number; the suspense lies in whether Sebelius will offer any demographic breakdown of the data. How many of the 50-60,000 who have signed up are people with preexisting conditions? How many are low-income and need significant subsidies? ObamaCare will succeed or fail depending upon how many “young healthies” can be persuaded or coerced into signing up. How are they doing with that group?

Posted by: Ace at 11:31 AM | Comments (727)
Post contains 318 words, total size 3 kb.