If you don’t like the headline, or this video, just calm down:
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was in Miami, Florida at an event promoting Obamacare when she approached a table where people were signing up on Healthcare.gov. While she was there, a local reporter noticed the website had crashed.
At a second table, the secretary met Carmen Salero who was trying to sign up online. As the secretary and Salero made small talk, CBS4′s Brian Andrews noticed the site crash on the lap top in front of them.
“The screen says I’m sorry but the system is temporarily down,” Andrews pointed out. “Uh oh,” responded the secretary. “That happens every day,” said Salerno, “it must mean a lot of people are on there trying to get coverage.”
No, it must mean the government can’t build a functional website in three years.
At a nearby table:
…the Secretary joked as she met Willy Williams of Miami who was working with a navigator to get signed up. “It went down three times,” said Williams referring to the site, “but we’re just going to keep trying,” he added.
During the entire event, Sebelius said they were able to sign up a total of two people.
I really don’t understand how the left can consider themselves intellectuals.
They walk around with this smug self-rightesousness, this air of superiority because they believe themselves to be not just smarter people, but better people.
They are a perennial study in failure.
And it’s not because their ideas are cutting edge and untested.
They are nothing but regurgitated social and fiscal theories that were proposed every decade for the last couple centuries.
There’s nothing original to their philosophy. Nothing.
And now, with the most progressive president in the history of the United States in his second term, they have the spine to simply come out and propose something that’s been tried over and over again.
Some call it a “redistribution of wealth,” other say “to each according to their need, from each according to their ability.”
The folks at Slate call it a “basic income.” Basically, the brilliant idea is to take money from the rich people and give it to the poor people.
Because that’ll fix everything!
A simple idea for eliminating poverty is garnering greater attention in recent weeks: automatically have the government give every adult a basic income.
Simple, they say.
And they believe it:
How would it work?
It’s exactly how it sounds. The government would mail every American over the age of 21 a check each month. That’s it. Everyone is free to do what they like with it.
Say, that is simple.
Here’s what it looks like in the mind of an American leftist:
This is from the mind of the supposed intellectual class. The government would just send people checks. What’s hard to understand about that?
Can you understand my irritated disbelief at their arrogance?
Now any intelligent person knows the government has to take everything they give away. That’s the only way they have money to give away. They use force to take someone’s property and give it to someone else.
But, in the mind of a leftist, it’s not that messy. First, you get rid of every state and federal benefit and replace it with a minimum income.
Then, you start taxing the crap out of businesses:
The CBO found that a carbon tax would bring in nearly $100 billion a year for instance.
Um, geniuses, who do you think is going to pay that carbon tax?
Let’s ask President Obama:
That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers.
Consumers, for those leftists reading this, means the people you want to just give checks to. So, while you’re giving them a check, you’re simultaneously increasing their energy costs.
How do you fix that? More taxes?
No, you know what you’ll do. You’ll either reimplement the benefits you cut, like SNAP, or most likely, you won’t cut them in the first place.
But, in the fantasy world of the leftist, where basic economics doesn’t exist, everything would be fine, because no one would be living in poverty. Plus, this somehow gives employees leverage to get higher wages, because rainbows and unicorns and stuff:
Americans would have greater leverage to demand higher wages and better working conditions from their employer thanks to the increased income security. Families could allow one parent to take time off to raise their kids. Eliminating the numerous different government welfare programs would also lead to efficiency gains as adults would simply receive their check in the mail and not have to waste time filling out paperwork at numerous different offices.
Here’s what that looks like:
And, in this world, there are no drawbacks to this.
No, really. That’s what these giants of intellect tell each other:
a basic income is just that: basic. Most adults would continue to work to earn extra money. The employment effects would not be non-existent and there may be an increase in part-time work. As Lowrey points out, different studies have found the disincentive effects on work are not as strong as economists feared.
But what effect would this have on the price of goods? Would it cause an increase in prices? Of course it would. We’ve already discussed that. So if prices go up, the baseline for poverty goes up. Now people who don’t have a job to supplement their “basic income” need more “income.” So people start to ask, “Why are we giving rich people a basic income? They don’t need it. We should stop giving it to them and give it to the poor people instead.”
This that won’t happen? Think again:
Today’s wealthiest Americans have the same opportunity to put their country’s interests before their own. Politicians should not shy away from asking them to put forth not their lives but what are, for them, their modest Social Security checks.
That’s the Washington Post, not some far left fringe blog. These ideas are being discussed in the mainstream, right now. Never mind that they were forced to pay into the system. The rich should give up their Social Security checks.
This is exactly what would happen with a “basic income program.” You know I’m right.
This isn’t a fix for poverty. This is the most glaring example of leftist arrogance there is. The idea that they can, from a central location, dictate the standard of living for every citizen in the United States, is megalomaniacal.
There is a force in this world that can raise people out of poverty. It’s succeeded every time it’s been tried.
It’s capitalism. And it works.
WHAT?! – Obama’s Top IT Manager Says 60-70% 30-40% of Obamacare Has Yet to Be Built (Video) – Updated
These guys had three years to put this together.
They got about 60 percent done:
REP. CORY GARDNER: Well how much do we have to build today, still? What do we need to build? 50 percent? 40 percent? 30 percent?
HENRY CHAO: I think it’s, uh, just an approximation, we’re probably sitting somewhere between 60 and 70 percent because we still have to build…
GARDNER: Wait, 60 or 70 percent that needs to be built, still?
CHAO: Because we still have to build the payment systems to make payments to insurers in January.
GARDNER: Let me get this correct. Sixty to 70 percent of Healthcare.gov still needs to be built?
CHAO: It’s not really about Healthcare.gov — it’s the federally-facilitated marketplace.
GARDNER: The entire system that the American people are being required to rely upon…
CHAO: Healthcare.gov — the online application, verification, determination, plan compare, getting enrolled, generating the enrollment transaction — that’s 100 percent there.
GARDNER: But the entire system is 60 to 70 percent away from being complete.
CHAO: There’s the back office systems, the accounting systems, the payment systems…they still need to be done.
Let me rub some salt in that wound:
In testimony on Capitol Hill, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, in response to a direct question: “Congresswoman, we have spent about $118 million on the website itself, and about $56 million has been expended on other IT to support the web.”
That adds up to $174 million.
So, does that mean we can expect this to be three times that by the time Obama’s done coding everything?
From Guy Benson:
Based on the context and additional reports, it seems that Chao meant to say that 60 to 70 percent of the system has been built, with 30 to 40 percent still to go. I’ve changed my headline as a result.
Mitt Romney nailed President Obama on his duplicity here:
I love that Charlie Rose went right for the tu quoque logical fallacy:
Romney handled it like a pro:
He’s right. People are upset at the roll out, but they’re angry about the lies.
Hat Tip: Liberty News
The president didn’t attend today’s ceremony recognizing the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address because he was too busy fixing Healthcare.gov.
— Dan Pfeiffer (@pfeiffer44) November 19, 2013
So, what we’re supposed to believe is that while the ceremony was going on, President Obama was doing this:
Why would you do this?
In a recorded recitation uploaded to YouTube on November 9, President Obama read the address in its entirety. However, when it came to the line “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom,” the President left out the words “under God.”
Obama’s omission occurs at the 1:35 mark.
Obama respects the feelings of those who might be offended by hearing “God” than he does the words of Abraham Lincoln or America’s history.
Apparently, he was asked to read the original version, which didn’t have the words “Under God.”
After President Obama announced his fixes to Obamacare, fixes that have been criticized as being unConstitutional, DC insurance commissioner William White voiced his doubts:
White was one of the first insurance commissioners in the nation last week to push back against Obama’s attempt to smooth over part of the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act: millions of unexpected cancellations of insurance plans.
In a statement issued Thursday, White hinted strongly that he opposed the idea.
“The action today undercuts the purpose of the exchanges, including the District’s DC Health Link, by creating exceptions that make it more difficult for them to operate,” the statement said.
He also pointed to a statement issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners that said the Obama order “threatens to undermine the new market, and may lead to higher premiums and market disruptions in 2014 and beyond.”
“We concur with that assessment,” White said Thursday.
On Friday, White says he was called into the Democratic Mayor’s office and told:
A day after he questioned President Obama’s decision to unwind a major tenet of the health-care law and said the nation’s capital might not go along, D.C. insurance commissioner William P. White was fired.
White was called into a meeting Friday afternoon with one of Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s (D) top deputies and told that the mayor “wants to go in a different direction,” White told The Washington Post on Saturday.
White said the mayoral deputy never said that he was being asked to leave because of his Thursday statement on health care. But he said the timing was hard to ignore.
Meanwhile, this guy still has a job:
The black-nationalist Department of Homeland Security employee who was placed on leave almost four months ago for running a website that espouses the mass murder of whites has still not been fired, an agency spokesperson told National Journal.
Kimathi, using the online nom de guerre “the Irritated Genie,” called for “ethnic cleansing” of “black-skinned Uncle Tom race traitors” on his website, which envisioned a massive race war on the horizon. “In order for Black people to survive the 21st century, we are going to have to kill a lot of whites—more than our Christian hearts can possibly count,” he wrote.
So, recap. Criticize Obama, lose your job.
Call for ethic cleansing of more white people than your Christian heart can count? It’s complicated.
Rand Paul on Obamacare “I Don’t Think It’s Fixable” and “Most of the Fixes Coming from the Executive are UnConstitutional.” (Video)
First thirty seconds, game over:
President Bill Clinton kills any doubt you might have had about Hillary running in 2016 with this quote:
“I hope we have a woman president in my lifetime, and I think it would be a good thing for the world as well as for America,” Clinton said at a conference organised by the respected Chinese financial magazine Caijing.
“But I do not know if she’s going to run, and there is no such thing as a sure thing in politics,” he added.
If not Hillary, I’m sure he settle…again:
I’d take a woman president, if they have the right values.
It’s not really about the hardware, you see. It’s about the operating system.
No matter how many times you reboot socialism, it always ends up crashing.
Hat Tip: Weasel Zippers