Santa Claus, surrounded by nine reindeer, announced today that he was declaring his candidacy for the president of the United States. Decked out in his traditional red Christmas costume, the white-bearded political novice promised to visit every person in the country at least once a year.
With Mrs. Claus dutifully at his side, the jocular Christmas icon made his announcement at a packed news conference at the North Pole. His surprise revelation promised to shake up the presidential race, trumping the celebrity candidacy of at least one contender for the White House.
Mr. Claus read his statement from a list that appeared to have children's names written in the margins. Once he finished, he opened the floor to media questions. Here is a partial transcript from the media briefing attended by journalists and a diminutive contingent of red-and-green dressed elves.
Q: Mr. Claus, what party primary will you enter?
A: I thought about running as a Democrat, since I have been giving away free stuff for centuries. It seemed like a good fit. But my surname isn't Clinton, so I'm pretty sure I'm prohibited from running.
Q: So, you'll campaign as a Republican?
Are you kidding me? That party has like 200 candidates. They don't need another outsider without political experience.
Q: You're saying you'll run as an independent?
There you go putting words in my mouth. I prefer to think of my candidacy as a way for people to express their gratitude for the millions of gifts I have showered on them through the years.
Q. What about your age? There are references to Santa Claus in 1773 in a New York newspaper. That would make you 242 years old. Isn't that too old to be president?
A. Even at 242, that makes me two years younger than Bernie Sanders. No one talks about his age.
Q. Are you aware that the last major party candidate to wear a beard was Republican Charles Evan Hughes, who was defeated in 1916?
A. Have you seen that awful comb-over on Donald Trump? The man would look better with a beard. Besides, I think voters are looking for a fatherly figure in the White House after eight years of a man-child in the Oval Office.
Q: Will you campaign in your Christmas garb? Isn't it a little old fashioned?
A. Check out those baggy pantsuits Hillary is wearing. Talk about dowdy. Red is so chic by comparison. Besides the coat hides my ample belly. It works for Hillary, it should work for me.
Q: What will be the focus of your campaign?
A. The theme will be lowering the voting age. I think it is time we gave two year olds and older the right to cast a ballot. Heck, we let illegal immigrants vote, so why not children?
Q: Your opponents may argue you just want kids to vote because it would be to your political advantage?
A. Listen that is nothing but political claptrap. Children's futures are at stake in this election. They should have a voice in the country's direction. No one complains about dead people voting Democrat in Chicago. Why would anyone object to a sweet innocent child showing up at the polls?
Q: Where do you stand on climate change?
A. You obviously haven't spent much time at the North Pole. We have miserable freezing temperatures every day. Mrs. Claus hates the cold. We are both praying for global warming.
Q: You have no experience in foreign policy. How will you overcome that disadvantage?
A. Look I have spent years circling the globe. I know every village, town and city in every country in the world. Well, except for those Middle Eastern countries. I am known there as The Infidel Who Shimmies Down The Filthy Chimney.
Q: Do you have a campaign slogan?
A. I kinda like, "Put a little Ho-Ho-Ho in the White House." But Mrs. Claus didn't want to be known as the wife of a "ho." So, we have changed it to, "Santa Will Make America Merry Again."
Q. What about a running mate? Have you thought about a vice presidential choice?
A. I have already asked Rudolph to run as the first reindeer vice president. I know it may raise a few eyebrows, but honestly, he can't be any worse than Joe Biden. Like Biden, Rudolph will only be allowed to appear in public once a year.
Q: If you're elected, will you continue to deliver toys to children every Christmas?
A. Of course! Especially once we have lowered the voting age. It will make a second term a cinch.
Monday, December 21, 2015
Monday, December 14, 2015
Gun Solutions: Just The Facts Please
The terrorist killing spree in San Bernardino provided ammunition for President Obama's echo chamber in the media to renew their evangelism for stricter gun control laws. The media reaction was equal parts hysteria and factual fraud, rendering it counterproductive to finding solutions.
News outlets, in an effort to politicize the shootings, deliberately distorted gun violence statistics in the aftermath of the mass killings. The media relies on the shock-value of numbers to bolster their propaganda push for gun control without addressing if tighter laws would actually reduce violence.
That makes it difficult for the average American to determine the best solution for preventing mass shootings. Politicians, the media, gun advocates and gun opponents jigger statistics to suit their own positions. None of this helps the country to reach a consensus on what should be done.
There must be agreement on the facts for any serious discussion to yield effective solutions. Just doing something may convince the uninitiated that knee-jerk politicians care about gun violence, but it is irresponsible to enact laws without a scrupulous analysis of the incidents and the causes.
For starters, below are facts about shootings involving guns in the United States. The statistics are mostly derived from FBI reports, a non-partisan source for the facts on the ground. No figures from the major gun rights organization, the National Rifle Association, are used in this analysis.
Violent Crime In the U.S. is Decreasing Not Increasing
FBI statistics on violent crime show a steady decline nationally. Violent crime in 2014 was 6.9 percent below the 2010 level and the number represented a 16.2 reduction from 2005. This downward trend has existed for more than a decade.
Gun Violence In the U.S. is Declining Not Rising
Murder rates are continuing to decrease nationally, the FBI reports. The murder rate has dipped 6.1 percent since 2010 and nearly 21 percent (20.8%) from the 2005 level. Murder accounted for just 1.2 percent of all the violent crime in the United States last year.
Of all the violent deaths, a firearm of some kind was used in 68 percent of the homicides. In 12.1 percent of the murders, the perpetrator wielded a knife. Violent deaths caused by firearms have declined in nearly every year since 2009. The lone exception was 2012.
Some gun control supporters often quote total firearms deaths, eschewing the homicide data. The numbers are very misleading, since the data includes suicides. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 63 percent of all firearm deaths are attributed to suicides.
The president has cited comparisons of gun homicides in other countries. However, the data is collected inconsistently and homicide is defined differently in each country. For example, the United Kingdom excludes gun homicides that do not result in a conviction from its statistics.
Even using the flawed data, Mexico's firearms homicide rate is three times higher than the United States, based on the latest figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Gun ownership laws are much stricter in Mexico than in the U.S.
Ten American Cities Account For 20 Percent Of All Gun Violence
Murderous shooting rampages have been a chronic problem in a handful of American cities. Chicago has consistently ranked among the top three cities with the most murders since 1985. Yet the city has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.
The ten most dangerous cities in order are Chicago, New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Houston, New Orleans, Memphis and Dallas. The cities are ranked by the total number of murders reported in 2013, the latest year for which statistics are available.
Subtract the gun deaths from those ten cities and national firearm violence figures have decreased significantly over the last decade.
Gun Ownership Has Risen as Gun Violence Has Fallen
There is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crimes. While gun murders have fallen, the number of people in the United States with firearms has skyrocketed. A 2012 Congressional Research Service report estimated there were 242 million firearms in the hands of civilians.
A recent Washington Post report estimated today's figure at roughly 357 million guns. The news organization's conclusion was based on data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). ATF figures show U.S. gun production has almost doubled since 2009.
Mass Shooting Data Lacks Credibility
Democrats have used data purporting to show that the U.S. has suffered 353 mass shootings this year, killing 462 people and injuring 1,312. The figures are not credible. The numbers come from a crowd-sourced website shootingtracker.com, which admits its contributors are non-professionals.
There are conflicting statistics from a variety of legitimate sources, including the FBI, because for years the agency had no official definition of a "mass shooting" on its books. However, in 2014 the agency defined a "mass killing" as an incident with three or more fatalities. That makes it impossible to compare today's numbers with past years.
Depending on your source, the number of mass shootings in the United States this year ranges from 353 to four. The lack of authentic data leads many to jump to conclusions about gun laws that are not supported by the facts.
For example, The Washington Post fact checker crew posted data this month analyzing the four worst mass shootings since 2012, concluding gun laws would not have prevented the carnage. In fact, in most of the slayings, current laws were either ignored or guns were illegally obtained.
Whatever your views on gun laws, the preponderance of data suggests there is no link between the number of individuals with firearms and gun crime. Yet the public perception created by the news media is exactly the opposite. This is a disservice to an honest debate about reducing mass shootings.
Americans need to be armed with the facts about gun violence to keep politicians from manipulating data to advance their agenda on firearm laws. This much is clear from the facts. The enemy is not law-abiding American gun owners.
News outlets, in an effort to politicize the shootings, deliberately distorted gun violence statistics in the aftermath of the mass killings. The media relies on the shock-value of numbers to bolster their propaganda push for gun control without addressing if tighter laws would actually reduce violence.
That makes it difficult for the average American to determine the best solution for preventing mass shootings. Politicians, the media, gun advocates and gun opponents jigger statistics to suit their own positions. None of this helps the country to reach a consensus on what should be done.
There must be agreement on the facts for any serious discussion to yield effective solutions. Just doing something may convince the uninitiated that knee-jerk politicians care about gun violence, but it is irresponsible to enact laws without a scrupulous analysis of the incidents and the causes.
For starters, below are facts about shootings involving guns in the United States. The statistics are mostly derived from FBI reports, a non-partisan source for the facts on the ground. No figures from the major gun rights organization, the National Rifle Association, are used in this analysis.
Violent Crime In the U.S. is Decreasing Not Increasing
FBI statistics on violent crime show a steady decline nationally. Violent crime in 2014 was 6.9 percent below the 2010 level and the number represented a 16.2 reduction from 2005. This downward trend has existed for more than a decade.
Gun Violence In the U.S. is Declining Not Rising
Murder rates are continuing to decrease nationally, the FBI reports. The murder rate has dipped 6.1 percent since 2010 and nearly 21 percent (20.8%) from the 2005 level. Murder accounted for just 1.2 percent of all the violent crime in the United States last year.
Of all the violent deaths, a firearm of some kind was used in 68 percent of the homicides. In 12.1 percent of the murders, the perpetrator wielded a knife. Violent deaths caused by firearms have declined in nearly every year since 2009. The lone exception was 2012.
Some gun control supporters often quote total firearms deaths, eschewing the homicide data. The numbers are very misleading, since the data includes suicides. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 63 percent of all firearm deaths are attributed to suicides.
The president has cited comparisons of gun homicides in other countries. However, the data is collected inconsistently and homicide is defined differently in each country. For example, the United Kingdom excludes gun homicides that do not result in a conviction from its statistics.
Even using the flawed data, Mexico's firearms homicide rate is three times higher than the United States, based on the latest figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Gun ownership laws are much stricter in Mexico than in the U.S.
Ten American Cities Account For 20 Percent Of All Gun Violence
Murderous shooting rampages have been a chronic problem in a handful of American cities. Chicago has consistently ranked among the top three cities with the most murders since 1985. Yet the city has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.
The ten most dangerous cities in order are Chicago, New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Houston, New Orleans, Memphis and Dallas. The cities are ranked by the total number of murders reported in 2013, the latest year for which statistics are available.
Subtract the gun deaths from those ten cities and national firearm violence figures have decreased significantly over the last decade.
Gun Ownership Has Risen as Gun Violence Has Fallen
There is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crimes. While gun murders have fallen, the number of people in the United States with firearms has skyrocketed. A 2012 Congressional Research Service report estimated there were 242 million firearms in the hands of civilians.
A recent Washington Post report estimated today's figure at roughly 357 million guns. The news organization's conclusion was based on data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). ATF figures show U.S. gun production has almost doubled since 2009.
Mass Shooting Data Lacks Credibility
Democrats have used data purporting to show that the U.S. has suffered 353 mass shootings this year, killing 462 people and injuring 1,312. The figures are not credible. The numbers come from a crowd-sourced website shootingtracker.com, which admits its contributors are non-professionals.
There are conflicting statistics from a variety of legitimate sources, including the FBI, because for years the agency had no official definition of a "mass shooting" on its books. However, in 2014 the agency defined a "mass killing" as an incident with three or more fatalities. That makes it impossible to compare today's numbers with past years.
Depending on your source, the number of mass shootings in the United States this year ranges from 353 to four. The lack of authentic data leads many to jump to conclusions about gun laws that are not supported by the facts.
For example, The Washington Post fact checker crew posted data this month analyzing the four worst mass shootings since 2012, concluding gun laws would not have prevented the carnage. In fact, in most of the slayings, current laws were either ignored or guns were illegally obtained.
Whatever your views on gun laws, the preponderance of data suggests there is no link between the number of individuals with firearms and gun crime. Yet the public perception created by the news media is exactly the opposite. This is a disservice to an honest debate about reducing mass shootings.
Americans need to be armed with the facts about gun violence to keep politicians from manipulating data to advance their agenda on firearm laws. This much is clear from the facts. The enemy is not law-abiding American gun owners.
Monday, December 7, 2015
Vetting Obama's Claims About Syrian Refugees
President Obama and Democrats are openly mocking Americans who have expressed concerns about the impending flood of Syrian refugees into the country. Opponents of the Obama refugee doctrine have been dismissed as intolerant, anti-immigrant, bigoted and hateful.
The vitriolic verbal attacks are aimed at shutting down legitimate debate over the president's plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees this year, 85,000 in 2016 and 100,000 more in 2017 after Mr. Obama leaves office. About 2,200 Syrian refugees have been granted asylum in the last four years.
In ridiculing his critics, the president has made statements about the extensive vetting process for refugees designed to deter potential terrorists from entering the U.S. His claims have mostly gone unchallenged by a sympathetic media. However, the facts don't support Mr. Obama's rhetoric.
Here is a list of Mr. Obama's assertions with the accompanying facts that offer contradictory evidence to the president's statements.
"People should remember that no refugee can enter our borders until they undergo the highest security checks of anyone traveling to the United States," the president has steadfastly maintained.
The security vetting process is flawed and offers no guarantee terrorists will be blocked from entering the country. As proof, Senator Jeff Sessions recently released a list of 12 refugees who were allowed into the country this year and were subsequently arrested for conspiring to commit terrorism or for providing support to terrorists.
Moreover, FBI Director James Comey acknowledged last month that federal agencies had no fool-proof method to conduct background checks on refugees. "If we don't know much about somebody, there won't be anything in our data," he confided. "I can't sit here and offer anybody absolute assurance that there's no risk associated with this."
Unlike many Middle Eastern refugees, Syrians are more likely to sympathize with ISIS. A recent opinion poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies shows that 13 percent of Syrian refugees hold positive views of the terrorist group. That is an alarming number that underscores the need for a thorough vetting.
In the last week, Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar from Laredo on the Texas border revealed that groups of Syrians are already slipping into the U.S. from Mexico, surrendering to Border Patrol and requesting political asylum. The new arrivals can skip the vetting period and have the right to settle wherever they want in the U.S. under current immigration policy, asserts Cuellar.
The Congressman warns that likely more Syrians will use the same route into the United States and called for federal action to prevent a potential flood of Middle Eastern refugees through America's porous southern border.
Mr. Obama and other Democrats often contend that refugees are "not a burden" on America and represent "valuable, hardworking" additions to our communities.
While it is understandable that refugees may have difficulty securing a job, many are winding up on the government dole.
According this year's Annual Report to Congress by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), 39 percent of refugees received public assistance, 56 percent went on Medicaid, 74 percent signed up for food stamps and 23 percent obtained public housing assistance in fiscal year 2013. This year the ORR agency has spent nearly $1 billion ($999.4 million) to resettle and provide benefits to refugees.
"But they're (Republicans) scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion," Mr. Obama has argued.
Mr. Obama acts as if Republicans want to limit the number of refugees coming to America. Not many people are aware that it is the president who sets a ceiling each year on refugees. For fiscal year 2015, Mr. Obama fixed the number at 70,000. He made that decision, not Congress.
This assertion about widows and children is a canard used by Mr. Obama to tar his opponents. He knows it is not true. Republicans and many Americans are frightened of the prospect of adult refugees entering the country with the intent to kill and maim citizens.
For example, in 2013 two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky were arrested after they made claims they used explosive devices to kill U.S. soldiers in their country and were plotting attacks on our homeland. In another case, a Uzbek refugee in Idaho was found guilty of stockpiling explosives in support of a terrorist organization.
The Boston marathon bombers, who immigrated from Chechnya, were granted asylum in the United States, before killing three and injuring more than 250 people. Authorities claim they were fully vetted before being allowed in the country. That suggests the current system is unreliable.
The recent massacre in San Bernardino, California, was another wake-up call for the country's terror guardians. One of the killers, Tashfeen Malik, entered the country on a fiancee visa after being screened for jihadist connections.
How many more examples does the president need before he owns up to the fact there is no way to assure Americans that not a single Syrian refugee who enters in the country is a potential terrorist?
This is a rhetorical question. Mr. Obama knows that even the world's best vetting system cannot identify every terrorist threat. It would be refreshing to hear the president admit it. Instead, he disparages those with relevant apprehensions, spawning divisiveness over the issue.
Before another Syrian refugee is granted asylum, the United States needs to bolster its vetting process, implement increased screening for Middle Eastern applicants, improve the sharing of terrorist data across government agencies and enhance monitoring of the resettlement process.
Without these changes, no one, including President Obama, can assure Americans that newly arriving refugees will not pose a terrorist threat to the country.
The vitriolic verbal attacks are aimed at shutting down legitimate debate over the president's plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees this year, 85,000 in 2016 and 100,000 more in 2017 after Mr. Obama leaves office. About 2,200 Syrian refugees have been granted asylum in the last four years.
In ridiculing his critics, the president has made statements about the extensive vetting process for refugees designed to deter potential terrorists from entering the U.S. His claims have mostly gone unchallenged by a sympathetic media. However, the facts don't support Mr. Obama's rhetoric.
Here is a list of Mr. Obama's assertions with the accompanying facts that offer contradictory evidence to the president's statements.
"People should remember that no refugee can enter our borders until they undergo the highest security checks of anyone traveling to the United States," the president has steadfastly maintained.
The security vetting process is flawed and offers no guarantee terrorists will be blocked from entering the country. As proof, Senator Jeff Sessions recently released a list of 12 refugees who were allowed into the country this year and were subsequently arrested for conspiring to commit terrorism or for providing support to terrorists.
Moreover, FBI Director James Comey acknowledged last month that federal agencies had no fool-proof method to conduct background checks on refugees. "If we don't know much about somebody, there won't be anything in our data," he confided. "I can't sit here and offer anybody absolute assurance that there's no risk associated with this."
Unlike many Middle Eastern refugees, Syrians are more likely to sympathize with ISIS. A recent opinion poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies shows that 13 percent of Syrian refugees hold positive views of the terrorist group. That is an alarming number that underscores the need for a thorough vetting.
In the last week, Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar from Laredo on the Texas border revealed that groups of Syrians are already slipping into the U.S. from Mexico, surrendering to Border Patrol and requesting political asylum. The new arrivals can skip the vetting period and have the right to settle wherever they want in the U.S. under current immigration policy, asserts Cuellar.
The Congressman warns that likely more Syrians will use the same route into the United States and called for federal action to prevent a potential flood of Middle Eastern refugees through America's porous southern border.
Mr. Obama and other Democrats often contend that refugees are "not a burden" on America and represent "valuable, hardworking" additions to our communities.
While it is understandable that refugees may have difficulty securing a job, many are winding up on the government dole.
According this year's Annual Report to Congress by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), 39 percent of refugees received public assistance, 56 percent went on Medicaid, 74 percent signed up for food stamps and 23 percent obtained public housing assistance in fiscal year 2013. This year the ORR agency has spent nearly $1 billion ($999.4 million) to resettle and provide benefits to refugees.
"But they're (Republicans) scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion," Mr. Obama has argued.
Mr. Obama acts as if Republicans want to limit the number of refugees coming to America. Not many people are aware that it is the president who sets a ceiling each year on refugees. For fiscal year 2015, Mr. Obama fixed the number at 70,000. He made that decision, not Congress.
This assertion about widows and children is a canard used by Mr. Obama to tar his opponents. He knows it is not true. Republicans and many Americans are frightened of the prospect of adult refugees entering the country with the intent to kill and maim citizens.
For example, in 2013 two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky were arrested after they made claims they used explosive devices to kill U.S. soldiers in their country and were plotting attacks on our homeland. In another case, a Uzbek refugee in Idaho was found guilty of stockpiling explosives in support of a terrorist organization.
The Boston marathon bombers, who immigrated from Chechnya, were granted asylum in the United States, before killing three and injuring more than 250 people. Authorities claim they were fully vetted before being allowed in the country. That suggests the current system is unreliable.
The recent massacre in San Bernardino, California, was another wake-up call for the country's terror guardians. One of the killers, Tashfeen Malik, entered the country on a fiancee visa after being screened for jihadist connections.
How many more examples does the president need before he owns up to the fact there is no way to assure Americans that not a single Syrian refugee who enters in the country is a potential terrorist?
This is a rhetorical question. Mr. Obama knows that even the world's best vetting system cannot identify every terrorist threat. It would be refreshing to hear the president admit it. Instead, he disparages those with relevant apprehensions, spawning divisiveness over the issue.
Before another Syrian refugee is granted asylum, the United States needs to bolster its vetting process, implement increased screening for Middle Eastern applicants, improve the sharing of terrorist data across government agencies and enhance monitoring of the resettlement process.
Without these changes, no one, including President Obama, can assure Americans that newly arriving refugees will not pose a terrorist threat to the country.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Climate Change: Assessing the Health Impact
When the Earth began to form an estimated 4.6 billion years ago, the climate was decidedly inhospitable. Scientists believe clouds of hydrogen and helium and interstellar dust cloaked the Earth. Astroids, meteors and comets bombarded the globe before it morphed into a habitable planet.
Even today, the Earth is still adjusting, progressing through periods of cooling and warming as it continues to evolve.
Unfortunately, Americans have been indoctrinated to believe any changes in climate are abnormal. However, scientific research shows the Earth's history has been marked by ice ages, followed by shorter-term warmer temperatures, the retreat of glaciers and then the return of colder temperatures.
Researchers at the Utah Geological Survey have documented at least five major ice ages on the planet. The earliest was more than two billion years ago and the most recent one began three million years ago and it continues today. Surprise! The Earth is at the tail end of an ice age.
About 20,000 years ago, the average temperature on Earth was about 10 degrees Fahrenheit colder than today. In some regions of the world, it was as much as 40 degrees colder. Around 11,500 years later, there was a sudden 20 degree Fahrenheit spike in temperatures, the Utah scientists reported.
During the last 100,000 years, scientists have recorded sudden changes in temperatures 24 times, the Utah geologists have written. That fact has never crept it into the mainstream media because their narrative has argued that even one degree change in temperatures will produce catastrophic results.
Another "mini-ice age" may be in the Earth's future. Climate modeling by Northumbria University in Wales predicts colder temperatures from 2030 through 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity. In a study released last week, scientists estimated a 60 percent drop in the sun's activity for a decade.
Regardless of what you believe about the credibility of claims about man-made climate change, there is indisputable evidence that the Earth's climate is not static. Today's climate will not be the same 1,000 years from now as it is today, even if all greenhouse gasses are eliminated.
Against that background comes a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the potential health impact of changes in the climate. The document does not wade into the debate about what causes climate change, instead focusing on planning for the inevitable health risks.
Whether the Earth warms or cools rapidly, sudden and sustained changes will affect health of the world's inhabitants. Since climate changes unequally affect some regions and countries, the impact may be more severe in different parts of the world, including the United States.
Changes in temperatures, precipitation, storms and sea levels have the potential for increasing health risks for allergies, asthma, respiratory diseases, food-and-water-borne illnesses, heat-related deaths and vector-borne diseases transmitted by insects, the GAO report points out.
Planning for the likelihood of these health calamities is a prudent precaution. The problem is that an alphabet-soup of federal and state agencies are involved in the planning, reporting and researching of the the adverse effects of climate change on health, according to the GAO.
In its research, the GAO interviewed staff at 26 federal agencies involved with the issues connected to climate change and associated health risks. That is part of the problem. The myriad of federal agencies have shared few details with the states and cities that are on the front lines of health issues.
In its recommendations, the GAO called on the Health and Human Services Secretary to direct the Centers for Disease Control to develop a plan to assume the lead role in assessing the health risks and communicating the results to states and cities. That is a sensible first step.
Instead of debates over climate change causes, the country would be better served by preparedness to deal with health issues. Moves to levy carbon taxes, ban gasoline automobiles, outlaw coal plants and stifle debate will have a tiny or no impact on the Earth's natural maturation process.
Politicians have employed scare tactics to raise fears over climate change. What has been missing is a historical perspective on the Earth's inevitable climate evolution. Too many Americans have been duped by climate fiction promoted by activists masquerading as scientists.
Once Americans better understand the health risks, they will support plans to prepare for the inevitable changes in the Earth's climate.
Even today, the Earth is still adjusting, progressing through periods of cooling and warming as it continues to evolve.
Unfortunately, Americans have been indoctrinated to believe any changes in climate are abnormal. However, scientific research shows the Earth's history has been marked by ice ages, followed by shorter-term warmer temperatures, the retreat of glaciers and then the return of colder temperatures.
Researchers at the Utah Geological Survey have documented at least five major ice ages on the planet. The earliest was more than two billion years ago and the most recent one began three million years ago and it continues today. Surprise! The Earth is at the tail end of an ice age.
About 20,000 years ago, the average temperature on Earth was about 10 degrees Fahrenheit colder than today. In some regions of the world, it was as much as 40 degrees colder. Around 11,500 years later, there was a sudden 20 degree Fahrenheit spike in temperatures, the Utah scientists reported.
During the last 100,000 years, scientists have recorded sudden changes in temperatures 24 times, the Utah geologists have written. That fact has never crept it into the mainstream media because their narrative has argued that even one degree change in temperatures will produce catastrophic results.
Another "mini-ice age" may be in the Earth's future. Climate modeling by Northumbria University in Wales predicts colder temperatures from 2030 through 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity. In a study released last week, scientists estimated a 60 percent drop in the sun's activity for a decade.
Regardless of what you believe about the credibility of claims about man-made climate change, there is indisputable evidence that the Earth's climate is not static. Today's climate will not be the same 1,000 years from now as it is today, even if all greenhouse gasses are eliminated.
Against that background comes a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the potential health impact of changes in the climate. The document does not wade into the debate about what causes climate change, instead focusing on planning for the inevitable health risks.
Whether the Earth warms or cools rapidly, sudden and sustained changes will affect health of the world's inhabitants. Since climate changes unequally affect some regions and countries, the impact may be more severe in different parts of the world, including the United States.
Changes in temperatures, precipitation, storms and sea levels have the potential for increasing health risks for allergies, asthma, respiratory diseases, food-and-water-borne illnesses, heat-related deaths and vector-borne diseases transmitted by insects, the GAO report points out.
Planning for the likelihood of these health calamities is a prudent precaution. The problem is that an alphabet-soup of federal and state agencies are involved in the planning, reporting and researching of the the adverse effects of climate change on health, according to the GAO.
In its research, the GAO interviewed staff at 26 federal agencies involved with the issues connected to climate change and associated health risks. That is part of the problem. The myriad of federal agencies have shared few details with the states and cities that are on the front lines of health issues.
In its recommendations, the GAO called on the Health and Human Services Secretary to direct the Centers for Disease Control to develop a plan to assume the lead role in assessing the health risks and communicating the results to states and cities. That is a sensible first step.
Instead of debates over climate change causes, the country would be better served by preparedness to deal with health issues. Moves to levy carbon taxes, ban gasoline automobiles, outlaw coal plants and stifle debate will have a tiny or no impact on the Earth's natural maturation process.
Politicians have employed scare tactics to raise fears over climate change. What has been missing is a historical perspective on the Earth's inevitable climate evolution. Too many Americans have been duped by climate fiction promoted by activists masquerading as scientists.
Once Americans better understand the health risks, they will support plans to prepare for the inevitable changes in the Earth's climate.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
The Night The Lights Went Out in Paris
The City of Light had not seen such darkness since World War II. Islamic terrorists slaughtered 129 innocent people in a series of coordinated strikes on November 13 in Paris. The unspeakable horror of that night will never be erased, even in this city which celebrates life on a grand scale.
Calling the attacks an "act of war," French President Francois Hollande acted decisively, declaring a curfew and deploying thousands of military troops to secure the city. That shining symbol of Paris, the Eiffel Tower, was bathed in darkness instead of light. City life came to a sudden halt.
The tree-lined streets of Paris were eerily silent with no pedestrians in sight. Sounds of joy that normally echo from crowded cafes and bars were muted. The tense hush reminded many of France's darkest days during the German occupation of France in World War II.
As dawn shook residents from their slumber, small groups of Parisians began venturing into the empty streets. They snapped photos with their smart phones and posted pictures online as a rebuke to terrorists who hoped to shut down the city. Resilient Parisians refused to be cowered by murderers.
Their ancestors stood up to the Germans during the occupation. These spunky Parisians would again show the world they would resist those who wanted to destroy their city and their way of life.
Soon what began as a trickle, turned into a wave of humanity. Parisians streamed into the streets of their city, hastily erecting memorials to the victims. They clutched friends and strangers alike as they mourned the loss of so many. They searched for answers and found none that made sense.
The murderous rampage struck at the heart of the spirit of Paris. The worst attack was carried out by jihadists at the Bataclan Concert Hall, a legendary venue for rock music. Terrorists sprayed the theater with automatic weapons, snuffing out the lives of 89 innocent victims and wounding 99 more.
The hall is one of many cozy performance venues that dot the city. It is a temple of Paris nightlife in a city that is fond of live performances, concerts, nightclubs and unpretentious cafes. They even delight in music played by amateur artists who ply their craft in the cavernous subway underground.
The Islamic terrorists' thirst for blood was not satiated by the massacre at the concert hall. They carried out lightning strikes at a restaurant and two cafe bars, firing indiscriminately at patrons. Small cafes and bars hold an almost reverential place in Paris because they are safe refuges from tourists.
More than 100 rounds were fired inside one restaurant, La Petit Cambodge. As people scattered for cover, the terrorists kept emptying their assault weapons. The barrage of gunfire left 15 dead and 15 with life-threatening injuries. A leisurely dining experience had turned into a crimson nightmare.
The attacks were centered in and around the Eleventh Arrondissement, an administrative district in Paris. It is home to a mix of young suburban Parisians, expats and newly-arrived immigrants. There is a blossoming nightlife, featuring little bars, restaurants and quirky boutiques.
On the northern fringe of Paris, bomb explosions also shuddered the Stade de France stadium. The field was the scene of France's World Cup soccer triumph in 1998 and has hosted raucous concerts. A suicide bomber and a passerby were killed by the blasts outside the packed stadium.
As security whisked President Hollande from the stadium, most in the crowd reacted with stunned silence to the explosions. There was no panic, despite the frantic call to evacuate. The resolute French filed out in an orderly fashion, although some stayed and milled around on the stadium floor.
As word of the killing spree spread, Parisians sought shelter in their apartments. Many opened their doors to complete strangers reeling in shock. Paris taxi drivers shuttled people to their destinations for free. Everyone pitched in and did what they could to relieve the human suffering.
This was Paris at its best. This city that glitters often has shone the brightest in times of turmoil. Though tourists view Parisians as cold and aloof, they are passionate about their city, their culture and their collective resilience in the face of evil. No city reflects its citizens like Paris.
The terrorists left a deadly trail of carnage. But they never will kill the spirit of this city. Ingrained in every Parisian is the will to survive even in the worst of circumstances. The city will never forget what happened November 13, however, it will emerge united and stronger.
Calling the attacks an "act of war," French President Francois Hollande acted decisively, declaring a curfew and deploying thousands of military troops to secure the city. That shining symbol of Paris, the Eiffel Tower, was bathed in darkness instead of light. City life came to a sudden halt.
The tree-lined streets of Paris were eerily silent with no pedestrians in sight. Sounds of joy that normally echo from crowded cafes and bars were muted. The tense hush reminded many of France's darkest days during the German occupation of France in World War II.
As dawn shook residents from their slumber, small groups of Parisians began venturing into the empty streets. They snapped photos with their smart phones and posted pictures online as a rebuke to terrorists who hoped to shut down the city. Resilient Parisians refused to be cowered by murderers.
Their ancestors stood up to the Germans during the occupation. These spunky Parisians would again show the world they would resist those who wanted to destroy their city and their way of life.
Soon what began as a trickle, turned into a wave of humanity. Parisians streamed into the streets of their city, hastily erecting memorials to the victims. They clutched friends and strangers alike as they mourned the loss of so many. They searched for answers and found none that made sense.
The murderous rampage struck at the heart of the spirit of Paris. The worst attack was carried out by jihadists at the Bataclan Concert Hall, a legendary venue for rock music. Terrorists sprayed the theater with automatic weapons, snuffing out the lives of 89 innocent victims and wounding 99 more.
The hall is one of many cozy performance venues that dot the city. It is a temple of Paris nightlife in a city that is fond of live performances, concerts, nightclubs and unpretentious cafes. They even delight in music played by amateur artists who ply their craft in the cavernous subway underground.
The Islamic terrorists' thirst for blood was not satiated by the massacre at the concert hall. They carried out lightning strikes at a restaurant and two cafe bars, firing indiscriminately at patrons. Small cafes and bars hold an almost reverential place in Paris because they are safe refuges from tourists.
More than 100 rounds were fired inside one restaurant, La Petit Cambodge. As people scattered for cover, the terrorists kept emptying their assault weapons. The barrage of gunfire left 15 dead and 15 with life-threatening injuries. A leisurely dining experience had turned into a crimson nightmare.
The attacks were centered in and around the Eleventh Arrondissement, an administrative district in Paris. It is home to a mix of young suburban Parisians, expats and newly-arrived immigrants. There is a blossoming nightlife, featuring little bars, restaurants and quirky boutiques.
On the northern fringe of Paris, bomb explosions also shuddered the Stade de France stadium. The field was the scene of France's World Cup soccer triumph in 1998 and has hosted raucous concerts. A suicide bomber and a passerby were killed by the blasts outside the packed stadium.
As security whisked President Hollande from the stadium, most in the crowd reacted with stunned silence to the explosions. There was no panic, despite the frantic call to evacuate. The resolute French filed out in an orderly fashion, although some stayed and milled around on the stadium floor.
As word of the killing spree spread, Parisians sought shelter in their apartments. Many opened their doors to complete strangers reeling in shock. Paris taxi drivers shuttled people to their destinations for free. Everyone pitched in and did what they could to relieve the human suffering.
This was Paris at its best. This city that glitters often has shone the brightest in times of turmoil. Though tourists view Parisians as cold and aloof, they are passionate about their city, their culture and their collective resilience in the face of evil. No city reflects its citizens like Paris.
The terrorists left a deadly trail of carnage. But they never will kill the spirit of this city. Ingrained in every Parisian is the will to survive even in the worst of circumstances. The city will never forget what happened November 13, however, it will emerge united and stronger.
Monday, November 9, 2015
The Obama Effect: Republicans Gain Control
After the election of Barrack Obama in 2008, the national media pronounced final rites for the Republican Party. Pundits declared the GOP was too white, too old and too out-of-step with America to appeal to voters. It turns out reports of the party's death were premature.
Since President Obama pranced into the White House, the Republican Party has arisen from the ash heap of defeat to the height of domination. The GOP today controls 56 per cent of the country's 7,383 state legislative seats. Thirty-two of the nation's 50 governors are Republicans.
On the national level, Republicans have majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democrats once controlled the majority of the local and state elected offices and ruled the two legislative branches in Washington. The decline has reached epic proportions.
How bad have Democrats fared since the coronation of Mr. Obama?
Consider since 2009, Democrats have lost 910 state legislative seats. The party once dominated both chambers in 27 state legislatures. Now the number has skidded to 11, the lowest since 1978. The party has conceded 12 governorships, 69 seats in the House of Representatives and 13 Senate seats.
Despite the historic gains, the media continues to portray the GOP as the party that preaches hate, bigotry and misogyny. It is the party in decay, according to the media cabal. The reality is Democrats have suffered their worst string of defeats in decades. Call it the "Obama Effect."
There are a few inescapable conclusions that can be drawn from the voters rejection of the Democratic Party.
Despite fawning media support, Mr. Obama's purported popularity with voters has never been an assest to Democratic office seekers. His endorsement has had little impact in the majority of races, except in heavily Democratic states. His coattails don't stretch beyond the D.C. Beltway.
In fact, many Democratic candidates distanced themselves from the president in the most recent mid-term elections. Mr. Obama was uninvited by a host of Democrat candidates involved in tight races, especially in districts where neither party held a clear majority of registered voters.
Yet the latest Gallup Poll finds 47 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama's doing. At the same point in his second term, Bill Clinton's rating was 59 percent. Bush's numbers plunged to 32 percent and his unpopularity led to a thrashing of the GOP in the 2008 elections.
The suspicion has been that Mr. Obama's polling numbers are padded by voters reluctant to negatively rate the first African-American president. Privately people may express misgivings, but publicly critics are afraid of being branded a racist. It raises questions about the veracity of polls.
To state it another way: the polls may not accurately reflect Americans' feelings toward Mr. Obama. He likely is not as popular with the electorate as the polls suggest, despite his two-term victories against unimposing GOP candidates.
Flawed polls don't entirely explain the nosedive of the Democratic Party. There are a couple of other factors in play. One is the overwhelming unpopularity of Mr. Obama's signature health care plan. Democrat candidates have been forced by their GOP opponents to defend the scheme with voters.
More often than not it has spelled disaster for Democrats. In last week's gubernatorial race in Kentucky, a decided underdog Republican Matt Bevin ousted a popular Democrat by duck-taping him to the Obamacare reform. Ironically, the polls had the Democrat well ahead on election day.
A third explanation is one the national media will never report. Republican solutions to issues are resonating with voters. Many GOP candidates are hammering home the message of less government, lower taxes, economic growth, tighter borders and expanding school choice.
These traditional GOP themes are supposedly out-of-fashion with voters. The media cartel has dredged up polls, pundits and academics in a propaganda campaign to suggest Americans favor more government, expanded welfare, free college, open borders and higher taxes on the rich.
Their clarion call has not swayed voters. Democrat defeats have been lost on the current crop of party presidential candidates who continue to preach archaic ideas that have been soundly rejected in state and local races. That does not portend well for Democrats chances next November.
All signs point to a Democratic Party trouncing next year. Modeling developed by the Reuters news organization shows that the incumbent president's party is less likely to hold onto the office unless the current occupant's popularity is 50 percent or higher.
History is also on the side of Republicans. Democrats have failed in four of their last five attempts to win three consecutive terms in the White House, the lone anomaly being President Franklin Roosevelt. Historically, voters usually tire of the ruling party after two terms and change horses.
All the evidence points to a Republican resurgence. Just don't expect the mainstream media to acknowledge the reversal of fortunes for the GOP.
Since President Obama pranced into the White House, the Republican Party has arisen from the ash heap of defeat to the height of domination. The GOP today controls 56 per cent of the country's 7,383 state legislative seats. Thirty-two of the nation's 50 governors are Republicans.
On the national level, Republicans have majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democrats once controlled the majority of the local and state elected offices and ruled the two legislative branches in Washington. The decline has reached epic proportions.
How bad have Democrats fared since the coronation of Mr. Obama?
Consider since 2009, Democrats have lost 910 state legislative seats. The party once dominated both chambers in 27 state legislatures. Now the number has skidded to 11, the lowest since 1978. The party has conceded 12 governorships, 69 seats in the House of Representatives and 13 Senate seats.
Despite the historic gains, the media continues to portray the GOP as the party that preaches hate, bigotry and misogyny. It is the party in decay, according to the media cabal. The reality is Democrats have suffered their worst string of defeats in decades. Call it the "Obama Effect."
There are a few inescapable conclusions that can be drawn from the voters rejection of the Democratic Party.
Despite fawning media support, Mr. Obama's purported popularity with voters has never been an assest to Democratic office seekers. His endorsement has had little impact in the majority of races, except in heavily Democratic states. His coattails don't stretch beyond the D.C. Beltway.
In fact, many Democratic candidates distanced themselves from the president in the most recent mid-term elections. Mr. Obama was uninvited by a host of Democrat candidates involved in tight races, especially in districts where neither party held a clear majority of registered voters.
Yet the latest Gallup Poll finds 47 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama's doing. At the same point in his second term, Bill Clinton's rating was 59 percent. Bush's numbers plunged to 32 percent and his unpopularity led to a thrashing of the GOP in the 2008 elections.
The suspicion has been that Mr. Obama's polling numbers are padded by voters reluctant to negatively rate the first African-American president. Privately people may express misgivings, but publicly critics are afraid of being branded a racist. It raises questions about the veracity of polls.
To state it another way: the polls may not accurately reflect Americans' feelings toward Mr. Obama. He likely is not as popular with the electorate as the polls suggest, despite his two-term victories against unimposing GOP candidates.
Flawed polls don't entirely explain the nosedive of the Democratic Party. There are a couple of other factors in play. One is the overwhelming unpopularity of Mr. Obama's signature health care plan. Democrat candidates have been forced by their GOP opponents to defend the scheme with voters.
More often than not it has spelled disaster for Democrats. In last week's gubernatorial race in Kentucky, a decided underdog Republican Matt Bevin ousted a popular Democrat by duck-taping him to the Obamacare reform. Ironically, the polls had the Democrat well ahead on election day.
A third explanation is one the national media will never report. Republican solutions to issues are resonating with voters. Many GOP candidates are hammering home the message of less government, lower taxes, economic growth, tighter borders and expanding school choice.
These traditional GOP themes are supposedly out-of-fashion with voters. The media cartel has dredged up polls, pundits and academics in a propaganda campaign to suggest Americans favor more government, expanded welfare, free college, open borders and higher taxes on the rich.
Their clarion call has not swayed voters. Democrat defeats have been lost on the current crop of party presidential candidates who continue to preach archaic ideas that have been soundly rejected in state and local races. That does not portend well for Democrats chances next November.
All signs point to a Democratic Party trouncing next year. Modeling developed by the Reuters news organization shows that the incumbent president's party is less likely to hold onto the office unless the current occupant's popularity is 50 percent or higher.
History is also on the side of Republicans. Democrats have failed in four of their last five attempts to win three consecutive terms in the White House, the lone anomaly being President Franklin Roosevelt. Historically, voters usually tire of the ruling party after two terms and change horses.
All the evidence points to a Republican resurgence. Just don't expect the mainstream media to acknowledge the reversal of fortunes for the GOP.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Obamacare: America's Unhealthy Insurance Scheme
After the president declared Obamacare a roaring success, the nation's media turned a blind eye to reports chronicling the unraveling of the largest government boondoggle in history. Mr. Obama's signature health reform plan is wallowing in billions of fraud, mismanagement and insolvency.
The bloated federal bureaucracy paid for by taxpayers to oversee the implementation of Obamacare is an administrative muck up. Nearly every aspect of the health plan designed to cover the uninsured has been an utter failure. Moreover, costs have exceeded even the rosiest predictions.
When the health plan was signed into law in 2010, reports showed 14.4 percent of all adults were uninsured. Today nearly 13 percent (12.9%)of adults have no insurance despite billions in government spending. More than 32 million Americans remain uninsured.
The president has claimed 17.6 million Americans have signed up for health care coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. About five million of those Americans previously had no insurance. That means the overwhelming majority were forced to give up their previous policy.
Even the 17.6 million number is dubious. Survey data from the global consulting firm McKinsey shows that 16 percent of those who enroll never obtain insurance. That means the number of Americans covered under Obamacare is closer to 13.7 million, far short of its original goal.
For those meager results, taxpayers will pay almost double the administration's under inflated cost estimate. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected costs over the next decade will top $1.993 trillion. The president promised costs would not exceed $900 billion over 10 years.
To make matters worse, there have been a slew of investigations by government watchdog groups excoriating the government apparatus for its handling of the implementation and operation of the insurance program.
In one of the most recent reports, the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General documented the dismal performance of tax-funded insurance cooperatives that were created in 2011 at a cost of $2 billion. The co-ops were supposed to compete with private health insurance firms.
The inspector's findings were a searing indictment of the government scheme. Seven co-ops have shuttered their doors. Of the remaining 23 co-ops, 22 are in deep financial trouble. As a result, more co-ops will soon be forced to close because of insolvency.
Another audit by the same inspector general forced a stunning admission from the Health and Human Services Department, the agency entrusted with overseeing Obamacare. The department could not verify the accuracy of more than $2.8 billion it paid out in subsidies to newly insured Americans.
The IG investigation found HHS "did not have systems in place to ensure that financial assistance payments were made on behalf of confirmed enrollees in the correct amounts." Translation: the agency had no idea if those receiving subsidies met the income, citizenship or tax requirements.
The Obamacare state exchanges have fared only slightly better than the co-ops. Many of the exchanges have floundered, suffering systemic failures, cost-overruns and slipshod controls. More than $5.5 billion has been doled out to the problem-plagued exchanges.
The independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently conducted a field test to determine the viability of enrollment controls in federal and state exchanges. In its covert operation, GAO delegates applied for coverage through the exchanges.
The GAO applicants used fictitious Social Security numbers, fraudulent household income data and fake citizenship information. Ten of its 11 undercover operatives were able to receive Obamacare subsidies and tax credits from the exchanges using the bogus data.
It should came as no surprise that in August of this year the HHS Inspector General found that the website Healthcare.gov was failing to verify applicants' Social Security numbers, citizenship and household income.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration conducted its own investigation this year and revealed that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was failing to verify whether individuals had purchased mandated health coverage before distributing tax credits.
Even for this government, the level of dereliction, bureaucratic bungling and incompetency is epic. Yet the president and his media sycophants continue to unabashedly propagandize the success of the health care law, ignoring the flawed implementation of the complex reform.
For all these issues, Obamacare has victimized the very people it was supposed to help. Millions of Americans have had their insurance plans cancelled, lost access to their doctors, been socked with skyrocketing premiums and been forced to accept higher insurance deductibles.
This year alone rates for insurance sold through the government website are expected to increase an average of 7.5 percent for coverage in 2016. Consumers in some states will pay even higher rates. For example, insurance prices in Idaho are expected to spike 30 percent.
The president has left a fetid trail of broken promises on his way to proclaiming Obamacare an unqualified success. Now that the truth has been exposed, it is clear the reform has been a disaster. However, Americans are stuck with the tax bill and saddled with shoddy health coverage.
The next president must halt the charade and end resuscitation of the terminally ill health plan.
The bloated federal bureaucracy paid for by taxpayers to oversee the implementation of Obamacare is an administrative muck up. Nearly every aspect of the health plan designed to cover the uninsured has been an utter failure. Moreover, costs have exceeded even the rosiest predictions.
When the health plan was signed into law in 2010, reports showed 14.4 percent of all adults were uninsured. Today nearly 13 percent (12.9%)of adults have no insurance despite billions in government spending. More than 32 million Americans remain uninsured.
The president has claimed 17.6 million Americans have signed up for health care coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. About five million of those Americans previously had no insurance. That means the overwhelming majority were forced to give up their previous policy.
Even the 17.6 million number is dubious. Survey data from the global consulting firm McKinsey shows that 16 percent of those who enroll never obtain insurance. That means the number of Americans covered under Obamacare is closer to 13.7 million, far short of its original goal.
For those meager results, taxpayers will pay almost double the administration's under inflated cost estimate. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected costs over the next decade will top $1.993 trillion. The president promised costs would not exceed $900 billion over 10 years.
To make matters worse, there have been a slew of investigations by government watchdog groups excoriating the government apparatus for its handling of the implementation and operation of the insurance program.
In one of the most recent reports, the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General documented the dismal performance of tax-funded insurance cooperatives that were created in 2011 at a cost of $2 billion. The co-ops were supposed to compete with private health insurance firms.
The inspector's findings were a searing indictment of the government scheme. Seven co-ops have shuttered their doors. Of the remaining 23 co-ops, 22 are in deep financial trouble. As a result, more co-ops will soon be forced to close because of insolvency.
Another audit by the same inspector general forced a stunning admission from the Health and Human Services Department, the agency entrusted with overseeing Obamacare. The department could not verify the accuracy of more than $2.8 billion it paid out in subsidies to newly insured Americans.
The IG investigation found HHS "did not have systems in place to ensure that financial assistance payments were made on behalf of confirmed enrollees in the correct amounts." Translation: the agency had no idea if those receiving subsidies met the income, citizenship or tax requirements.
The Obamacare state exchanges have fared only slightly better than the co-ops. Many of the exchanges have floundered, suffering systemic failures, cost-overruns and slipshod controls. More than $5.5 billion has been doled out to the problem-plagued exchanges.
The independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently conducted a field test to determine the viability of enrollment controls in federal and state exchanges. In its covert operation, GAO delegates applied for coverage through the exchanges.
The GAO applicants used fictitious Social Security numbers, fraudulent household income data and fake citizenship information. Ten of its 11 undercover operatives were able to receive Obamacare subsidies and tax credits from the exchanges using the bogus data.
It should came as no surprise that in August of this year the HHS Inspector General found that the website Healthcare.gov was failing to verify applicants' Social Security numbers, citizenship and household income.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration conducted its own investigation this year and revealed that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was failing to verify whether individuals had purchased mandated health coverage before distributing tax credits.
Even for this government, the level of dereliction, bureaucratic bungling and incompetency is epic. Yet the president and his media sycophants continue to unabashedly propagandize the success of the health care law, ignoring the flawed implementation of the complex reform.
For all these issues, Obamacare has victimized the very people it was supposed to help. Millions of Americans have had their insurance plans cancelled, lost access to their doctors, been socked with skyrocketing premiums and been forced to accept higher insurance deductibles.
This year alone rates for insurance sold through the government website are expected to increase an average of 7.5 percent for coverage in 2016. Consumers in some states will pay even higher rates. For example, insurance prices in Idaho are expected to spike 30 percent.
The president has left a fetid trail of broken promises on his way to proclaiming Obamacare an unqualified success. Now that the truth has been exposed, it is clear the reform has been a disaster. However, Americans are stuck with the tax bill and saddled with shoddy health coverage.
The next president must halt the charade and end resuscitation of the terminally ill health plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)