Donald Trump Smacks Around “F” Chuck Todd and Karl Rove

Notice how “F” Chuck Todd tries to sneak in some rather bogus political narratives? This is one reason why MSNBC has such poor ratings. People are smart enough to see the semantic games and bogus narratives introduced as a matter of routine at MSNBC.

On a side note, at the beginning “F” Chuck Tries to posture Trump and is completely bowled over. While Trump is at times a tad over the top and thus “unpresidential”, the GOP field could use a little bit of Trump’s fire.

 

Note: If you missed the Donald Trump interview with Sean Hannity be sure you see it as it is a good policy discussion – LINK.

Rules for the Facebook Wall!

A retired professor friend of mine, who is sick and tired of the mindless emotionalism of others passing as arguments, created a set of rules for his Facebook wall for those who follow and comment.

RULES OF MY WALL

1) Friends may feel free to contest anything I post. BUT there are rules of engagement that your must adhere to otherwise, if you do not I may either delete your utterance or in obdurate cases defriend as being a friend without redeeming significance. There is a reason why there is a “like” button but no “Dislike” If you dislike something say why specifically.

2) NO profanity or gratuitous snarl words., courtesy meet for my advanced age.

4) Do NOT comment on a post you have not read.

5) Assertions are not facts, nor words merely expressing your view point, logic.

6) If I ask a question you MUST ANSWER it BEFORE preceeding to the next assertion. E.G if you say something is “ridiculous,” I may ask you why you think that. If you assert that I “support BO,” I will definitely ask you WHAT EXACTLY I said that made you think that.

If you say you support Newt, I may ask you if you agree with him on this or that point to ascertain how much you know about your candidate. You MUST answer before making your next point.

7) No hit and run snarl word without supporting specific facts, not unsupported opinion or glittering generalizations. I will abide by these same rules on your wall and your postings.

I like these rules, especially number six. Some people use the selective ignoring of key inconvenient facts as a means of calculated aggression, some are just creatures of raw emotion and block out whatever causes cognitive dissonance.

Also on number six, lots of people say on Facebook “If you don’t agree with me” or “If you don’t support candidate X, then you are just trying to get Obama re-elected”.  In most cases that is pure idiocy unless you can back it up with a very good argument.

The fact that such common sense rules are needed is an indication of something that we have lost in society. Why? In the days of the old partisan press, when each town had at least two newspapers with different points of view, people would talk about these differences at the barber shop and the soda shop thus enjoying exercise in debate of the issues of the day regularly. Today if people get half a centimeter out of their comfort zone they can just change the channel or click and button and poof the discomfort is gone. If they cannot do that they pulled the “I’m offended!” card. Pardon me, but I prefer clarity to comfort.

I had this problem with some young professors at IU; said professors could not tell the difference between the sting of an inconvenient truth presented directly and someone being uncivil and nasty. There were several times that I had to explain the difference to a professor when they made this error, which sometimes just enraged them even more.

Fortunately I published my own student newspaper which was very popular so most of the faculty feared my First Amendment ability to sound the alarm. Some Marxist professors were pretty brave until they realized I would be willing to quote them exactly in the student paper. Of course, the professor who appreciated good scholarship and legit debate had nothing to fear from me. Some students would publish grossly unfair things in the official student paper, but in my paper, which was published by older “non traditional” students, we had very high standards because we knew that the administration would use any excuse to attack us.

Study: Under Obamacare, Employers Will Likely Engage in ‘Targeted Dumping’ of Employees

This is no surprise. In 2009 I was said repeatedly on my old college blog that ObamaCare was designed to blow up the system by driving prices and taxes up, by creating an impossible regulatory environment, and by a series of “incentives” that encourage people to make decisions that make the system less feasible as time goes on. Shortly after I said that ObamaCare creates an economic death spiral (known as an adverse selection spiral) of bad incentives that encourage people to game the system; each decision that you take for your own best interests helps to bankrupt the system.

The Weekly Standard:

Minnesota Public Radio reports, “A loophole in the federal health care overhaul would allow many employers to game the system by dumping their sicker employees [into] public health insurance exchanges, according to two University of Minnesota law professors.” Such “targeted dumping” of sicker employees would cause Obamacare’s taxpayer-subsidized exchanges to cost more — potentially far more — than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected.

The CBO has already badly misjudged the number of employees who would lose their employer-sponsored insurance under Obamacare. The CBO projected that, from 2010 to 2011, a net of 6 million Americans wouldgain employer-sponsored insurance in the wake of Obamacare’s passage (see table 4). But Gallup has found that, since President Obama signed Obamacare into law in March 2010, 4.5 million Americans have losttheir employer-sponsored insurance. In other words, the CBO’s estimate is off by about 10 million people already.

Some of this no doubt has to do with the historically bad economic “recovery” under Obama. But Obamacare likely has a lot to do with that as well.

In their study, published in the Virginia Law Review, authors Amy Monahan and Daniel Schwarcz write,

“[T]here is a substantial prospect that ACA [Obamacare] will lead some, and perhaps many, employers to implement a targeted dumping strategy designed to induce low-risk employees to retain ESI [employer-sponsored insurance] but incentivize high-risk employees to voluntarily opt out of ESI and instead purchase insurance through the exchanges that ACA establishes to organize individual insurance markets. Although ACA and other federal laws prohibit employers from excluding high-risk employees from ESI, these laws do little to prevent employers from designing their plans and benefits to incentivize high-risk employees to voluntarily seek coverage elsewhere. If successful, such a targeted dumping strategy would allow employers and low-risk employees to avoid the costs associated with providing coverage to high-risk employees….”

The authors note that employers who did this “would avoid any financial penalties under the so-called individual and employer ‘mandates.’”