The Democrats believe Millenials are such Idiots and Floozies that they could fool them into Paying for Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2014

Week in Review

It’s no secret that the Democrats benefit by having an ignorant electorate.  People who don’t know history or understand economics will more easily fall for their lies.  Especially when they victimize their base and demonize the opposition.  Republicans.  It’s a winning formula.  And it has won President Obama reelection.  Despite all the warnings from those who know history and understand economics.  Who warned us about what Obamacare was going to do to us.  And the urgency of repealing it before it became too entrenched.  But the naysayers said nay.  Uh-uh.  And your mother is a whore.  Demonizing the opposition with abandon.  And laughing at the snarky little jabs on late-night television.  Of course it’s different now.  As the young and healthy have learned that the Affordable Care Act was predicated on their paying the health care tab for the old and sick.

So Obamacare care went from the fair and just Affordable Care Act to the unfair and unaffordable care act.  Stunned by push back from their normally useful exploitable base the Obama administration pushed back against the pushback.  Warning the Millenials that they risked not being cool if they didn’t buy health insurance (see Obama’s pathetic pitch to millennials by David Pasch posted 2/14/2014 on the New York Post).

How do you market the Affordable Care Act to Millennials? If you’ve got a good answer, tell the White House right away. It’s tried everything to get us to sign up for health insurance on the federal exchanges — and most of its attempts have been off-tune, off-putting, or just downright dumb.

The latest effort involves former NBA star Magic Johnson. Sorry: While Johnson commands respect for his athletic and personal achievements, he’s the not the best candidate to market anything to Millennials. He retired in 1991. Anyone under 23 never even saw him pick up a basketball.

There’s also the “Brosurance” debacle…

The ads depict Millennials as idiots and floozies. One ad shows college kids doing keg stands; another shows a couple about to hook up, with the tag: “Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control…”

Other campaigns have been weird, sad or both. One print ad urged us to go to healthcare.gov by telling us that “Mom loves her comfy jeans.” So did that kid in college who played World of Warcraft, but he never made me want to buy health insurance. Then there’s the “pajama boy” campaign, which convinced anyone over 30 that Millennials are insufferable. And another ad targets women with a not-so-catchy tune sung by cats and dogs…

To be fair, Millennials aren’t always laughing at the administration’s ads. Sometimes we’re laughing with them — when they feature celebrities and comedians who we’ve actually heard of, like Amy Poehler, Sarah Silverman or Will Ferrell.

But the real joke is on us. ObamaCare just isn’t a good deal for my generation.

The problems start with how much plans cost. Insurance rates have skyrocketed for Millennials since the exchanges opened in October. According to the Manhattan Institute, the average 27-year-old man is facing a 97 percent premium hike and the average 27-year old woman a 55 percent increase.

It is hard to believe that these are the same people who put a campaign together that defeated Mitt Romney during the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  And the incompetence and cover-up of Benghazi (it was a spontaneous uprising by people angered over a YouTube video who pulled pre-sighted mortars from their back pockets).  One wonders how you go from the 2012 campaign to “Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control” and “Mom loves her comfy jeans.”  I just don’t see these influencing the electorate to vote Democrat.

Why is the premium hike for men almost twice what it is for women?  Because the Affordable Care Act now forces men to buy insurance to cover a reproductive system they don’t have.  For in the name of fairness women can no longer be charged more than men for health insurance.  So they charge men more.  It doesn’t lower the cost of women’s health insurance though.  For it is still rising 55%.  So where is all that money going?  To pay for the old and sick.

The Democrats believe Millenials are idiots and floozies.  For they have worked tirelessly to dumb down our public schools and higher education.  So they can more easily lie to those they think of as idiots and floozies.  It’s as if you can hear them say, “Look, we gave you free birth control.  Isn’t that worth an extra car payment a month?”  Based on the enrollment numbers of the Millenials, apparently not.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Colleges and Universities take Advantage of Students to keep that Tuition Money flowing into Big Education

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2014

Week in Review

Getting a college degree is expensive.  Because the greedy rich people running our colleges and universities keep raising the cost of tuition, forcing students to take out bigger and bigger student loans to satiate their greed.  And to make matters worse they often sell them worthless degrees for the current marketplace.  Often giving students poor advice.  Getting them to commit to those big student loans by hook or crook.  Taking advantage of these young students’ trust in them.  Anything to keep that money flowing into Big Education (see What you wish you’d known about college ahead of time by Caitlin Moran posted 2/14/2014 on The Seattle Times).

We received several thoughtful responses to our most recent reader question, which asked: “What do you wish you had known about college ahead of time..?”

Here are a few examples of what our readers said they wish they had known about college when they were younger. Some responses have been edited for length and grammar.

I wish I had known to do more research about my major and what it would actually do for me job-wise. I don’t use my degree for my job now, and I keep hearing about many people who take out huge school loans and graduate with few job skills. I worked my way through school, which was not fun, but at least I got out of college debt free. With recent tuition hikes, getting out debt free is much harder, and students need to make sure the loans will be worth it…

I wish I’d known I should know more about the world before going to college, so I had some idea why I was going. Had I known more about careers, skills and background for careers, and myself, I would have made different choices in college. I wish I had worked for a year or two, known what it was like, and known more about what I wanted.

Of course Big Education is not all that concerned about giving you the skills and background you need for a successful career.  They just want your money.  And to turn you into Democrat voters.  While keeping you Democrat voters as long as possible.  And being indebted by a degree that doesn’t help you make any more money than you could have without that degree goes a long way of making you dependent on Democrats in government.  Because rich and successful people need no help from the government.  Ergo the selling of so many worthless degrees.  To keep these people from becoming rich and successful.  Where they might do something harmful to Big Education.  Like voting Republican.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Ford Model T is probably a Safer Choice for a Cross-Country Trip than an All-Electric Car

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2014

Week in Review

The United States is no doubt tired of winter.  It’s been a long one.  Snow, ice and cold.  Especially cold.  With below-zero temperatures in northern states.  And freezing temperatures even in southern states.  In fact, it’s been such a brutal winter that every state in the United States but one has snow.  Florida.  It’s just been a long, cold winter.  But it’s been a good one for those in the snow removal business.  And for those in providing a jump-start for dead batteries.  For batteries just don’t like cold weather.  Which is another problem with all-electric cars.  In addition to finding a place and the time to charge them (see Tesla Model S Electric Car Versus … Ford Model T? A History Lesson by John Voelcker posted 2/14/2014 on Yahoo! Autos).

While the fast-expanding network of Tesla Supercharger DC quick-charging stations now permits both coast-to-coast and New York-to-Florida road trips by electric car, the magazine conducted its test last October…

And as it points out, in its area of the country (Ann Arbor, Michigan), there were no Supercharger stations last fall.

(There is now one, along I-94 in St. Joseph, Michigan, 26 miles north of the I-90 cross-country corridor–one of 76 operating U.S. Supercharger locations as of today.)

So it couched its Tesla-vs-Model T test as the equivalent, a century later, to the question it imagined potential buyers of the first automobiles may have pondered: How does this stack up against my old, familiar, predictable horse..?

In due course, small roadside businesses sprang up to sell gasoline for the newfangled contraptions, usually in the same place they could be repaired.

But travelers couldn’t be confident of finding gasoline until well into the 1920s, a result of the Model T turning the U.S. into a car-based nation almost by itself.

Imagine driving across a state the size of Michigan on a road trip.  From St. Joseph to Detroit on the other side of the state it’s about 200 miles.  Which it will take you over 3 hours to drive at posted speed limits.  Now imagine driving this with only one gas station to stop at.  One you’re not familiar with.  One that you will have to drive around a little to find.  While you’re running out of energy.  Now imagine you’re in an all-electric car.  And you find this one charging station and there are 4 cars ahead of you waiting for their 30-minute quick charge.  Which could increase your charging time from one half hour to two and a half hours.

Every gas station has electric power.  So every gas station could sell electricity for electric cars, too.  If someone had to wait a half hour to charge their car that is a lot of time they could be buying stuff from the mini mart all these gas stations have.  So why aren’t they building these things?  Is it that they don’t want the liability that might come from a faulty charger starting a battery fire?  Is it because there are so few all-electric cars to waste the investment on?  Is there a question of how to charge for electricity?  Or do they not want to turn their gas stations into parking lots with a bunch of cars waiting for their half hour of charge time?

Perhaps the reason Michigan only has one Supercharger station is because Michigan has long, cold winters.  Limiting electric car traveling to the summer months.  In fact, if you live in a northern state look for the charging stations some big stores have installed to show how green they are.  Chances are you won’t see a single car at them during the winter.  For when it comes to cold winters gasoline has it all over batteries.  Gasoline provides far greater range.  You can jump-start a gasoline engine in the coldest of winters and then drive home.  And if it’s cold you can crank the heat up to make it feel like summer inside that car.  Something you can’t do in an electric car without sacrificing further range.

The Model T was an improvement over the horse.  But the electric car is just not an improvement over the Model T.  Because a gasoline-powered car is superior to an all-electric car.  For if one was going to travel across a state the Model T would have better odds of getting you where you were going before running out of energy.  And even if you ran out of gas someone could bring a can of gasoline to you so you could drive to the next gas station.  Whereas an electric car would require a tow truck to the next charging station.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Britain and Scotland disagree over Scottish Currency in an Independent Scotland

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2014

Week in Review

The Eurozone was a grand idea to make an economic zone that could compete against the United States.  A United States of Europe, if you will.  But the Eurozone has suffered a sovereign debt crisis that was unavoidable.  As many analysts have identified the problem causing the Eurozone all its sovereign debt woes.  The lack of a political union.

The solution they say is for member states to give up some of their sovereignty and allow a Eurozone government have more control.  Like the United States of America has.  Which means putting even stricter controls on member states when it comes to their spending.  Which, in turn, would limit their deficits.  And their borrowing needs.  Which brought on the sovereign debt crisis in the first place.  Excessive spending beyond their ability to pay for with taxes.  Normally not a problem for other countries when another country spends itself into oblivion.  Unless, of course, there is a currency union with that country.  Which makes their problems your problems.  Problems that are impossible to solve without a political union.

The Eurozone sovereign debt crisis illustrates that a currency union without a political union will not work.  Which makes the movement for Scottish independence very interesting (see Britain warns Scotland: Forget the pound if you walk away by Belinda Goldsmith, Reuters, posted 2/13/2014 on Yahoo! News).

Britain warned Scotland on Thursday it would have to give up the pound if Scots voted to end the 307-year-old union with England, declaring the currency could not be divided up “as if it were a CD collection” after a messy divorce…

The message was aimed at undermining the economic case for independence and one of the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) key proposals – that an independent Scotland would keep the pound…

The debate has intensified in recent weeks with Bank of England chief Mark Carney cautioning that a currency union would entail a surrender of some sovereignty…

The SNP [Scottish National Party] has indicated that if London prevented a currency union, an independent Scotland could refuse to take on a share of the UK’s 1.2 trillion pounds ($1.99 trillion) of government debt which Britain has promised to honor…

Osborne said the nationalist threat to walk away from its share of UK debt would mean punitively high interest rates for an independent Scotland and was an “empty threat”.

“In that scenario, international lenders would look at Scotland and see a fledgling country whose only credit history was one gigantic default,” Osborne said.

Currently there is a political union between Scotland and England.  The United Kingdom (UK).  And Scottish independence would go contrary to what some analysts say is needed to save the Eurozone.  Political unity.  The problem in the Eurozone is that no one nation wants to give up any of their sovereignty and have some distant power tell them what they can and cannot do.  The way some in Scotland feel about London.  That distant power that governs the United Kingdom.

The British pound is one of the world’s strongest currencies.  A product of the powers in London.  Because they have political control across the UK.  If they lose their political control over Scotland will it damage the British pound?  If the Eurozone is any measure of a currency union without a political union, yes.  So it will be interesting to see what happens between these two great nations.  Whose people made the world a better place.  People like the great Scotsman Adam Smith.  And the great Englishman John Locke.  To name just two.  So whatever happens let’s hope it’s in the best interest of both countries.  For countries everywhere enjoying economic freedom and human rights can thank these two countries for their contributions to the British Empire.  Which helped spread the best of Western Civilization around the world from the United States to Canada to Australia to Hong Kong.  And beyond.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Abysmal Rollout of Obamacare going According to Plan to bring us to National Health Care?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2014

Week in Review

The roll out of the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) has given us a plethora of unintended consequences.  From freezing new hiring.  To pushing full-time workers into part-time.  To people losing the health insurance and doctor they liked and wanted to keep.  To higher insurance premiums. To higher deductibles.  To higher co-pays.  Taking a health care system that the vast majority of people were satisfied with and making it worse.  To accommodate a small percentage of the population who were uninsured.  If that wasn’t bad enough it doesn’t even look like some of the people who signed up for Obamacare are paying their insurance premiums (see Next problem for Obamacare: deadbeat enrollees by Rick Newman posted 2/14/2014 on Yahoo! Finance).

The  New York Times has discovered  that only about 80% of people purchasing health insurance through the federal online marketplace or a similar state-run exchange paid their first month’s premium. There’s no single source of such data, but the Times canvassed insurers participating in the program, such as Aetna (AET), Wellpoint (WLP), Humana (HUM) and Blue Shield of California. All said that the first-month payment rate ranged from 75% to 80% or so, far lower than for typical plans. If enrollees don’t pay the first month’s premium, their insurance never goes into effect.

That doesn’t mean, however, that one-fifth of the people signing up for Obamacare are blatantly refusing to pay. Technical problems with some of the exchange websites may have left people enrolled in an insurance plan without knowing it. Some may never have received a bill or confirmation of their enrollment. Others may have unwittingly signed up for two different policies, while paying for only one.

To make the Affordable Care Act work required a huge health care cost transfer from the old and sick to the young and healthy.  The young and healthy, incidentally, made up a sizeable portion of the uninsured.  Because they were young and healthy and felt invincible.  And invincible people don’t need to buy insurance.  So Obamacare needed the individual mandate to force these people to buy insurance against their will so they could pay for the old and sick.

Of course when they raised the price of health insurance to cover pre-existing conditions it wasn’t the young and healthy that ran to the Obamacare exchanges.  It was the old and sick.  Adding too many old and sick to the insurance pool.  And not enough of the young and healthy.  Those who would pay without consuming any benefits.  Because they are young and healthy.  Causing the insurers to pay more out in benefits than they receive in premiums.  Forcing them to raise their premiums.  Which will, of course, kick off the death spiral as people drop out because they can’t afford those higher rates.  Which will, in turn, force the insurers to raise their rates again.  Hence the death spiral.   And as bad as all of that was now it looks like about 20-25% of those who ‘signed up’ either didn’t or are simply choosing not to pay.  Making the financial predicament of the insurers far worse.

Of course if your plan was to force single-payer (i.e., national health care) onto the people against their will then everything is going according to plan to destroy the private insurance market.  Leaving only the government to step in and provide single-payer (i.e., national health care).  Which should fill everyone with confidence after seeing how well they rolled out the Affordable Care Act.  And no doubt will impress us even more with the rollout of single-payer (i.e., national health care).

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,