After all the shopping, wrapping and cooking, take a moment and let Linus remind us what Christmas is all about:
Merry Christmas everyone!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Don't Pee On Me And Tell Me It's Raining
Yesterday, President Obama praised the midnight vote ending debate on the Senate Obamacare bill and sending it to the floor for passage:
American voters were were positively ungrateful for the Dem efforts to impose health insurance mandates guaranteed to spike our premiums and strong disapproval of the President among likely voters surged to a new high.
Rasmussen Reports polls likely voters about their approval of the job being done by the President by asking them to choose whether they strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove. Today, the number of likely voters who strongly or somewhat approve of Barack Obama's job performance (44%) are outnumbered by those who strongly or somewhat disapprove (56%) - a new low and a new high respectively. If one subtracts the percentage of voters who disapprove from those who approve, you come up with an overall Presidential Approval Index of -12 points. This is my variation on the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Approval Index described below.
Rasmussen measures the intensity of likely voter approval or disapproval in his Presidential Approval Index by subtracting the percentage who strongly disapprove from those who strongly approve of Obama's job performance. Today, the number of likely voters who strongly approve of Barack Obama's job performance (25%) are outnumbered by those who strongly disapprove (46%) for a Presidential Approval Index of -21 points, a new record low.
The United States Senate knocked down a filibuster aimed at blocking a final vote on health care reform, and scored a big victory for the American people. By standing up to the special interests -- who've prevented reform for decades and who are furiously lobbying against it now -- the Senate has moved us closer to reform that makes a tremendous difference for families, for seniors, for businesses, and for the country as a whole.
American voters were were positively ungrateful for the Dem efforts to impose health insurance mandates guaranteed to spike our premiums and strong disapproval of the President among likely voters surged to a new high.
Rasmussen Reports polls likely voters about their approval of the job being done by the President by asking them to choose whether they strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove. Today, the number of likely voters who strongly or somewhat approve of Barack Obama's job performance (44%) are outnumbered by those who strongly or somewhat disapprove (56%) - a new low and a new high respectively. If one subtracts the percentage of voters who disapprove from those who approve, you come up with an overall Presidential Approval Index of -12 points. This is my variation on the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Approval Index described below.
Rasmussen measures the intensity of likely voter approval or disapproval in his Presidential Approval Index by subtracting the percentage who strongly disapprove from those who strongly approve of Obama's job performance. Today, the number of likely voters who strongly approve of Barack Obama's job performance (25%) are outnumbered by those who strongly disapprove (46%) for a Presidential Approval Index of -21 points, a new record low.
What Is In The Senate Obamacare Bill
For anyone that actually cares about what is actually in the Senate bill, here is the link. This is only the main bill without Harry Reid's 700 page pork amendment to buy votes. Of note:
1) So far as government socialization of the health care industry is concerned, this bill is a VAST improvement over the House socialist proposal.
a) HHS no longer has carte blanche to set coverage and premiums for the insurance industry.
b) There is a provision requiring insurers to rebate profits above 20% to their insured. This is window dressing since no insurer even gets close to 20% insurance.
c) HSAs like mine are no longer outlawed as in the House bill, but the bill will require care that I used to pay through my HSA to be instead covered by insurance, which will increase costs.
2) All of our insurance premiums are going to spike for a number of reasons:
a) Mental health coverage is now required.
b) There are restrictions on ratings and other measures which required high risk and high consumers of health care to pay more for their insurance and requires that the healthy pay for this risk and consumption except for tobacco usage.
c) High consumers of medical care get immediate coverage. While there is no subsidy for five years, small and medium size businesses have to provide this health insurance, bringing most of the high consumers of medical care into the system immediately or causing them to be fired.
d) There is no real penalty if healthy folks continue to decline insurance, which means those who maintain their health and buy insurance will be paying the freight for all the new insurance coverage.
I figure premiums are going up by a minimum of 15% next year if this passes. Probably more as the insurers overcharge until they can figure out what all these new mandates are going to cost to provide. Because company self insurance plans are exempted from many of these regs, those insured may escape much of the price increase.
One can only speculate as to how many employees will be fired so that business can insure the other employees with new or more costly insurance.
Hope and change indeed!
UPDATE ONE: Section 3403 of the Senate bill creates a new bureaucracy called the Independent Medicare Advisory Board which is tasked with cutting the growth of Medicare spending. This is a strange provision.
This Board appears to have near dictatorial power over this issue.
The Bill heavily restricts the means to enact legislation to change or reverse a Board decision.
The Senate may only suspend or waive these restrictions by a 3/5ths vote.
The Bill changes the rules of Congress to forbid it from later enacting legislation which will change or reverse the paragraph of the Bill implementing these restrictions, a provision I would think is baldly unconstitutional.
On the other hand, it appears that the bill bars the board from changing anything that actually might appreciably slow the growth of medicare spending. The Board cannot "ration care" or cut reimbursement for the care, so unless they squeeze care cuts under the term "ration care," then I cannot see where the Board is supposed to come up with the $500 billion in Medicare savings to pay for the trillion dollar cost of this bill. It all appears to be a charade.
UPDATE TWO: I have been discussing the impact of this bill with some hard left redistributionists on 538.com. Here is my response to one:
1) So far as government socialization of the health care industry is concerned, this bill is a VAST improvement over the House socialist proposal.
a) HHS no longer has carte blanche to set coverage and premiums for the insurance industry.
b) There is a provision requiring insurers to rebate profits above 20% to their insured. This is window dressing since no insurer even gets close to 20% insurance.
c) HSAs like mine are no longer outlawed as in the House bill, but the bill will require care that I used to pay through my HSA to be instead covered by insurance, which will increase costs.
2) All of our insurance premiums are going to spike for a number of reasons:
a) Mental health coverage is now required.
b) There are restrictions on ratings and other measures which required high risk and high consumers of health care to pay more for their insurance and requires that the healthy pay for this risk and consumption except for tobacco usage.
c) High consumers of medical care get immediate coverage. While there is no subsidy for five years, small and medium size businesses have to provide this health insurance, bringing most of the high consumers of medical care into the system immediately or causing them to be fired.
d) There is no real penalty if healthy folks continue to decline insurance, which means those who maintain their health and buy insurance will be paying the freight for all the new insurance coverage.
I figure premiums are going up by a minimum of 15% next year if this passes. Probably more as the insurers overcharge until they can figure out what all these new mandates are going to cost to provide. Because company self insurance plans are exempted from many of these regs, those insured may escape much of the price increase.
One can only speculate as to how many employees will be fired so that business can insure the other employees with new or more costly insurance.
Hope and change indeed!
UPDATE ONE: Section 3403 of the Senate bill creates a new bureaucracy called the Independent Medicare Advisory Board which is tasked with cutting the growth of Medicare spending. This is a strange provision.
This Board appears to have near dictatorial power over this issue.
The Bill heavily restricts the means to enact legislation to change or reverse a Board decision.
The Senate may only suspend or waive these restrictions by a 3/5ths vote.
The Bill changes the rules of Congress to forbid it from later enacting legislation which will change or reverse the paragraph of the Bill implementing these restrictions, a provision I would think is baldly unconstitutional.
On the other hand, it appears that the bill bars the board from changing anything that actually might appreciably slow the growth of medicare spending. The Board cannot "ration care" or cut reimbursement for the care, so unless they squeeze care cuts under the term "ration care," then I cannot see where the Board is supposed to come up with the $500 billion in Medicare savings to pay for the trillion dollar cost of this bill. It all appears to be a charade.
UPDATE TWO: I have been discussing the impact of this bill with some hard left redistributionists on 538.com. Here is my response to one:
Slasher:
This bill is regressive in the extreme.
1) The effective marginal income tax increase on the wealthy is miniscule and does not come close to paying the bills.
2) The marginal tax rate increase on the healthy young who decline to buy health insurance is actually higher than the tax on the wealthy and hits some of the lowest earning folks in the country. When I was 18 and was working my way through school by working as common labor in construction, I had no insurance and no money to buy any.
3) The mandate for smaller companies to purchase insurance for their employees and to a lesser extent the increased costs of insurance on companies currently providing insurance will be paid in one of two ways - the costs will be passed onto the employee or the company will fire their least productive employees to free up the money to pay for the new and increased premiums. In either case, the worker again takes it on the chin.
4) The subsides which will supposedly ameliorate some of this hit on the working class will not start for five more years.
5) If the Medicare cuts actually materialize, they will hit senior citizens on fixed incomes.
6) If instead there are no Medicare cuts, there will be more borrowing to pay the bills. This will increase interest rates for the government to borrow, which are passed onto tax payers. Or we will inflate our way out of the debt, which hits the working class without gold or investments the hardest.
You redistributionists should be appalled by this bill.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
A Toxic Brew
The recent Terrance Group polling in Nebraska illustrates how toxic the Dem health care bill is to electoral health:
"In general, do you favor or oppose President Obama’s plan to expand health care coverage to most Americans even if this plan increases the role of the federal government in health care and increases the cost of the deficit?"
Favor: 26%
Oppose: 67%
"If Senator Ben Nelson votes in favor of this plan, would that make you more likely or less likely to support Senator Nelson when he runs for re-election?"
More likely: 26%
Less Likely: 61%
"In general, do you favor or oppose President Obama’s plan to expand health care coverage to most Americans even if this plan increases the role of the federal government in health care and increases the cost of the deficit?"
Favor: 26%
Oppose: 67%
"If Senator Ben Nelson votes in favor of this plan, would that make you more likely or less likely to support Senator Nelson when he runs for re-election?"
More likely: 26%
Less Likely: 61%
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
A Pox On Both Of Your Houses
The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling indicates that Americans are saying a pox on both of your houses:
This is yet more polling confirmation that the Tea Party movement is a libertarian conservative citizens rebellion and not some product of the GOP. The GOP has a choice to surf the coming tsunami by getting back to libertarian conservative principles or risk getting washed out to sea with the Dems.
In addition to Obama’s job approval rating at 47 percent, fewer than four in 10 say they are confident he has the right set of goals and policies, which is down 15 points since his election.
And only one-third have confidence the president has the right goals and priorities to improve the economy, down 13 points since June....
The entire Republican Party, moreover, continues to maintain a net-negative favorable/unfavorable rating, 28 percent to 43 percent.
But, for the first time in more than two years, the Democratic Party also now holds a net-negative rating, 35 percent to 45 percent.
By comparison, the conservative libertarian-leaning Tea Party movement has a net-positive 41 percent to 23 percent score in the poll.
This is yet more polling confirmation that the Tea Party movement is a libertarian conservative citizens rebellion and not some product of the GOP. The GOP has a choice to surf the coming tsunami by getting back to libertarian conservative principles or risk getting washed out to sea with the Dems.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Past The Point Of Viability?
Opposition to Obamacare legislation keeps mounting. CNN asked whether Americans supported the Senate Obamacare bill - 61% NO, 36% Yes. 75% believe Obamacare will not help them, but 79% believe correctly that it will increase the deficit and 85% believe that it will raise their taxes.
This is a poll of adults and not voters, where opposition is generally stronger.
Support for Obamacare is now limited to the Dem base and dropping.
Has legislation with this much public opposition ever passed Congress anytime in history?
This is a poll of adults and not voters, where opposition is generally stronger.
Support for Obamacare is now limited to the Dem base and dropping.
Has legislation with this much public opposition ever passed Congress anytime in history?
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
The Devil Is In The Temperature Data
The argument I keep hearing in rebuttal to Climategate is that the CRU scientists are a few bad apples and the hundreds of scientists who support the hypothesis of manmade global warming could not all be involved in a world wide fraud. This has a surface appeal until you realize that all of these hundreds of scientists do not have to participate in or even be aware of the deception for the alleged proof of manmade warming to be a fraud.
The temperature data upon which all of this climate study relies is produced primarily by only three groups and a relative handful of participants - The Global Historical Climate Network (NOAA/GHCN); The British Climate Research Unit (CRU), and NASA/GISS. These groups take raw surface temperature data from around the world and "homogenize" these observations into the "adjusted" temperature data which is used by the world's climatologists.
While the leaked CRU emails were damning enough on their own account, the real scandal is emerging from comparison of the leaked CRU adjusted temperature data with the leaked raw data for the same regions. Invariably, the adjusted data shows warming - often dramatic warming - which simply is not present in the raw temperature data. Even more worrisome are findings that the CRU adjusted data is actually being produced by the other groups, putting in question all of the adjusted data being used in current climate research.
The first reports concerned the marked discrepancies between the rapidly increasing warming in the adjusted temperature data and the complete absence of warming in the raw data for New Zealand. It appears that the older temperatures had been arbitrarily reduced and the more recent temperatures raised to create the appearance of rapid warming.
The next reports concerned analyses of individual locations in Australia. Yesterday, Willis Eschenbach posted a detailed report of how the raw data from the weather stations at Darwin showing a 0.7 degree Celsius per century drop in temperature had been transformed into a 1.2 degree increase by the adjusted data provided by GHCN to CRU. The GHCN had adjusted the raw data for multiple weather stations, most dramatically for Darwin Zero, where the temperatures were growing by 6 degrees per century since 1941!
On the chart below, the blue line represents the temperatures actually recorded as Darwin Zero and the red line represents the temperatures as they were changed by GHCN:
Today, another blogger noted how the Brisbane raw data showing a 0.6 degree Celsius per century drop in temperature had been transformed into a 0.6 degree increase by the adjusted data created by GHCN and provided to NASA/GISS.
This was discovered after only a few days of scrutinizing a small sample of the raw and adjusted temperature data which is now publicly available. Think how much more fraud could be as yet undisclosed. The CRU did its best to ensure that none of their adjusted data could be tested by actually destroying all of their raw data. What is going on at GHCN and NASA/GISS?
This scandal needs a comprehensive and immediate dose of sunshine. President Obama campaigned as a champion of government transparency. He now has the opportunity to be as good as his word and immediately order the full disclosure of of all raw and adjusted temperature data, all computer coding and all emails possessed by NOAA/GHCN and NASA/GISS, and request that the British CRU provide the same. That way, the basis for the manmade global warming "proof" can be subject to proper scientific testing.
The temperature data upon which all of this climate study relies is produced primarily by only three groups and a relative handful of participants - The Global Historical Climate Network (NOAA/GHCN); The British Climate Research Unit (CRU), and NASA/GISS. These groups take raw surface temperature data from around the world and "homogenize" these observations into the "adjusted" temperature data which is used by the world's climatologists.
While the leaked CRU emails were damning enough on their own account, the real scandal is emerging from comparison of the leaked CRU adjusted temperature data with the leaked raw data for the same regions. Invariably, the adjusted data shows warming - often dramatic warming - which simply is not present in the raw temperature data. Even more worrisome are findings that the CRU adjusted data is actually being produced by the other groups, putting in question all of the adjusted data being used in current climate research.
The first reports concerned the marked discrepancies between the rapidly increasing warming in the adjusted temperature data and the complete absence of warming in the raw data for New Zealand. It appears that the older temperatures had been arbitrarily reduced and the more recent temperatures raised to create the appearance of rapid warming.
The next reports concerned analyses of individual locations in Australia. Yesterday, Willis Eschenbach posted a detailed report of how the raw data from the weather stations at Darwin showing a 0.7 degree Celsius per century drop in temperature had been transformed into a 1.2 degree increase by the adjusted data provided by GHCN to CRU. The GHCN had adjusted the raw data for multiple weather stations, most dramatically for Darwin Zero, where the temperatures were growing by 6 degrees per century since 1941!
On the chart below, the blue line represents the temperatures actually recorded as Darwin Zero and the red line represents the temperatures as they were changed by GHCN:
Today, another blogger noted how the Brisbane raw data showing a 0.6 degree Celsius per century drop in temperature had been transformed into a 0.6 degree increase by the adjusted data created by GHCN and provided to NASA/GISS.
This was discovered after only a few days of scrutinizing a small sample of the raw and adjusted temperature data which is now publicly available. Think how much more fraud could be as yet undisclosed. The CRU did its best to ensure that none of their adjusted data could be tested by actually destroying all of their raw data. What is going on at GHCN and NASA/GISS?
This scandal needs a comprehensive and immediate dose of sunshine. President Obama campaigned as a champion of government transparency. He now has the opportunity to be as good as his word and immediately order the full disclosure of of all raw and adjusted temperature data, all computer coding and all emails possessed by NOAA/GHCN and NASA/GISS, and request that the British CRU provide the same. That way, the basis for the manmade global warming "proof" can be subject to proper scientific testing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
