In an excellent article at Forbes, Sally Pipes explains why Mitt Romney’s health care experiment in Massachusetts has been a disaster; and why it offers a preview of things to come after passage of ObamaCare:
Earlier this month, the landmark Massachusetts health care reform law turned five years old. Democrats were quick to applaud the anniversary, as the Bay State law is the model for the federal health care reform package that passed last year.
The anniversary has proved especially inconvenient for former Massachusetts Governor and probable Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who argued forcefully for his state’s reforms. In 2006 he boldly stated, “Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the cost of health care will be reduced.”
Five years later, that prediction has proved false. Worse, the Massachusetts experiment offers an ominous preview of what lies ahead for the rest of the nation under ObamaCare.
When signing the bill into law, Romney claimed that it would “take about three years to get all of our citizens insured.” In 2006 the number of uninsured in Massachusetts ranged from 372,000 to 618,000. Five years later, over 100,000 remain uninsured.
So more Bay Staters do have insurance. But that doesn’t mean they’ve been able to get care.
The Massachusetts Medical Society found that 56% of physicians are not taking on new patients. Wait times for appointments are climbing. Just two years after reform took root, one clinic in Western Massachusetts had amassed a waiting list of 1,600 patients.
Gary Johnson has received a lot of attention since annoucing his campaign last Thurday. Earlier this week, Johnson, who served two terms as Governor of New Mexico talked about his campaign with Judge Andrew Napolitano and the issues he is running on; including balancing the federal budget, ending the wars we’re currently engaged in and restoring sound money:
Should [l]ibertarian philosophy be a large contributor to the GOP platform? Can [l]ibertarian philosophy contribute significantly to the GOP platform? Or to ask another way, can we and should we govern America in a different fashion than that of Barack Obama? The opposite of Barack Obama is freedom. But after years of steadily growing the American version of Oligarchical Collectivism, how exactly do we get back to being anything that resembles the Constitutional Republic that our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us?
In case you haven’t heard, the White House has released a copy of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate (you can view it below). The reasoning for release is that the conspiracy that Obama was born in a foreign country, which was debunked a few years ago, is unhealthy for the nation. You can read the correspondence the White House had with public officials in Hawaii, where Obama was born (and there was never a real reason to believe he wasn’t born there), here.
Of course, Donald Trump, who is considering a bid for the GOP nomination, is taking full credit for the White House releasing Obama’s birth certificate. While many are not taken Trump’s talk seriously, if he does decide to run, Obama just gave him a boost with a significant, though mind-numbingly stupid constituency in the conservative movement. Trump as a Republican nominee would likely be the easiest route to re-election among those currently performing well in primary polls.
While it may look like Trump put Obama on the defensive and forced him to release his birth certificate, this is actually very good strategy on the part of Obama by helping his weakest possible opponent.
While I wish the folks pushing this idiotic conspriacy would either go away or turn their attention to issues that actually matter; unfortunately, the release of Obama’s birth certificate isn’t going to end birtherism since reason and evidence don’t matter to conspiracy theorists.
Donald Trump, who plans to announce his decision on a presidential bid on his TV show during the season finale (there’s a shocker), has signed the Americans for Tax Reform’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge; but there is a catch:
Billionaire developer and GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has signed Americans for Tax Reform’s pledge to oppose any new taxes, according to ATR President Grover Norquist.
“I Donald J. Trump pledge to the taxpayers of the United States of America that I will oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes,” the pledge reads. But Trump apparently added in his own writing “Except on China and other countries that have consistently taken advantage of our great country.”
The pledge was dated Tuesday, April 26.
What’s the point to signing the tax pledge, the purpose of which is to oppose destructive economic policies, when you’re going to support tariffs on our trading partners? That’s an absurd notion. We know how protectionism played a significant role in causing the Great Depression because of the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff.
Don’t get me wrong. We need to become more competitive, but you don’t do that by imposing tariffs or pushing for “fair trade” (what exactly is fair trade, anyway?). You do that by getting rid of the deregulation, reducing the tax burden and getting rid of impediments to trade (ie. tariffs).
If this is the future of our country then we’re screwed:
I blame the bad acid trips from the late 60′s.
It was Friday night. Atlas Shrugged: Part I was finally showing locally, so my wife and I went to see it. Not really having a baby sitter, we took my 9 year old son. We also met an 18 year old friend of ours. Three generations, all set to see a movie based on a book published fifty years earlier. My wife, our friend, and myself kind of knew what we were getting into. I was pretty sure my son would hate the movie since there weren’t dramatic car chases and the like. Instead, I saw a nine year old boy lean forward, sitting on the edge of his seat, as he watched the tale unfold.
To discuss the cultural impact of a movie that’s only been out two weeks is obviously premature. However, Rand’s work on the big screen does open up some real possibilities. For example, a nine year old boy saw that work could be noble without the typical spin that it must be geared towards helping another. He learned that capitalism wasn’t some evil thing that needs to be stamped down by the benevolent hand of government, but a tool that empowers all to have the opportunities to create more for themselves.
What he did grasp was that there are people in this world who seek to tear down those who have achieved, either intentionally or unintentionally. They want what those people have. They use words like fairness to enslave one man to another, as if the motivation for that slavery makes it alright. He learned these things at age nine, and he learned them because of a movie.
Our friends at the Cato Institute have a released a new white paper outlining the case against President Barack Obama’s signature issue - what we like to call ObamaCare. The white paper explains the Obama Administration’s arguments for the law, the basic constitutional problems with it and prior court precendent. It discusses the limitations on the federal government; and the lackof limitations if this law is allowed to stand.
You can read the white paper below or visit here:
Despite telling members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that she would sit out any cases where she assisted the Obama Administration in her time as Solicitor General, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan didn’t recuse herself in the decision to deny an expedited hearing on ObamaCare:
Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan did not recuse herself from Monday’s decision not to fast-track the high court’s review of Virginia’s challenge to the healthcare reform law, prompting speculation that President Obama’s former solicitor general intends to take part in the case if and when it reaches her level.
“If Kagan didn’t recuse herself from this decision, it would hint that she won’t recuse herself from any ObamaCare deliberations despite … the possibility that she gave the administration legal advice on crafting and defending the law,” the conservative website Hot Air opined.
“That’s not exactly a surprise either; only Kagan can force herself into a recusal, and the chance to weigh in on one of the most critical Supreme Court decisions in decades is going to outweigh any qualms over conflicts of interest.”
Many conservatives, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), have said Kagan should sit out the healthcare challenge. But there was no indication Monday that she had abstained from the justices’ discussion of whether to skip the Court of Appeals process in Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s suit over the reform law’s requirement that most people buy insurance. (The court only makes explicit announcements about recusal when a particular justice has decided to abstain from a case).
Last week, the Club for Growth slammed Donald Trump hard for his past support of eminent domain - essentially stealing private property for personal gain - laying out a few instances of his support of the tactic, which included an attempt to take the property of an elderly woman to build a parking lot for limos.
Mike Leahy has a great post over at Broadside Books that takes issue with Trump for backing big government over the Little Pink House; also noting that this behavior should rule Trump out as a presidential contender for anyone in the tea party movement:
As a developer, Trump is certainly familiar with the legal principle known as eminent domain, a notorious violation of individual liberty, which allows the state to seize the property of a private individual (usually at below market prices) in order to use that property for what the state determines to be a “public purpose.” Though the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment was intended to prevent the possibility that “ private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” the state in 20th and 21st century America often uses its overwhelming power to define “just compensation” quite differently than the owner of the private property being taken.