Updated: The CBOafs (They Really Can't Count)

Barack Obama, Business, Government, Healthcare, Reason, Regulation, Socialism

In trying to sell the viability of BO’s Health plans, the oafs at the Congressional Budget Office (CBOafs) posit at least one scenario that doesn’t wash. Check the tables attached (via the WSJ). The CBOafs would like you to believe that an employer will choose NOT to drop a $10,000 health benefit for a paltry penalty of $750, thus saving $9,250, in the case of a high-valued employee. In an employer’s market??! Where are they living? Have they even surveyed the private sector?

This is, it would seem, a postulate ObamaCare is premised upon. The bastards.

NA-BC960A_BIZHE_NS_20091222215544

Update I (Dec. 23): THEY REALLY CAN’T COUNT. The “CBO has discovered an error in the cost estimate released yesterday,” the correction of which “reduces the degree to which the legislation would lower federal deficits in the decade after 2019,” confessed the Chief CBOaf. The entry, tucked away on the “Director’s Blog,” made select TV headlines today.

Call me simple, but with the prospect of merging one Bill (The House’s) that’s estimated to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years (according to the “nonpartisan” CBOafs) with another (The Senate’s) priced at $871 billion over the next 10 years (CBOafs again)—I’m unclear how the cost curve, as they put it, will be bent.

Updated: The CBOafs (They Really Can’t Count)

Barack Obama, Business, Government, Healthcare, Reason, Regulation, Socialism

In trying to sell the viability of BO’s Health plans, the oafs at the Congressional Budget Office (CBOafs) posit at least one scenario that doesn’t wash. Check the tables attached (via the WSJ). The CBOafs would like you to believe that an employer will choose NOT to drop a $10,000 health benefit for a paltry penalty of $750, thus saving $9,250, in the case of a high-valued employee. In an employer’s market??! Where are they living? Have they even surveyed the private sector?

This is, it would seem, a postulate ObamaCare is premised upon. The bastards.

NA-BC960A_BIZHE_NS_20091222215544

Update I (Dec. 23): THEY REALLY CAN’T COUNT. The “CBO has discovered an error in the cost estimate released yesterday,” the correction of which “reduces the degree to which the legislation would lower federal deficits in the decade after 2019,” confessed the Chief CBOaf. The entry, tucked away on the “Director’s Blog,” made select TV headlines today.

Call me simple, but with the prospect of merging one Bill (The House’s) that’s estimated to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years (according to the “nonpartisan” CBOafs) with another (The Senate’s) priced at $871 billion over the next 10 years (CBOafs again)—I’m unclear how the cost curve, as they put it, will be bent.

Updated: The Nanny State, Literally

Family, Healthcare, Regulation, Socialism, Welfare

Both the soon-to-be-merged Senate and House healthcare Bills have provisions that allow “children” to stay on mommy and daddy’s plan until they are 25 and 26 respectively.

The Nanny State, Literally. Keep ’em in short pants and diapers forever.

Lacking in the literature are studies of what the welfare state does to family dynamics across generations. Why, the recent expansion by BO of the entitlement plan known as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, gave me a renewed hatred of Our Children.

Newsweek distills some of the differences between the two Bills in a table titled, “Our Non-Wonky Guide to Merging the Senate and House Health Bills.”

THE HOUSE BILL: H. R. 3962

THE SENATE BILL: H. R. 3590

Update: Michelle Malkin beat us to it; she blogged the “Big Nanny’s slacker plan: Mandating insurance for adult ‘children'” yesterday, calling this “generational theft” “the slacker mandate.”

Updated: No More Making Whoopy In The Military?

Classical Liberalism, Feminism, Free Speech, Gender, IlanaMercer.com, Iraq, Military, Morality, Private Property, Sex, The State

Oh dear, some industrious Army general in Iraq wants to limit the wages of whoring in the military. Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III, quite reasonably, reports ABC News, issued a policy on Nov. 4 “forbidding pregnancy among his soldiers.”

His policy statement said violation of the rule could be punishable by court martial, and that it would also apply to the men who get female soldiers pregnant, even if the couple is married.
Pregnant soldiers are immediately redeployed out of combat zones to bases where they can get comprehensive medical care.

“The true purpose behind this is to cause them to pause and think about, ‘Okay wait a minute. It was written in the order and I’m going to leave my team. I’m going to leave an outfit shorthanded,'” Cucolo said.”

[SNIP]

NO MORE MAKING Whoopy In The Military? What next? Leaving Iraq for lack of recreational outlets? We can only hope.

Anyone with a brain cell knows that the military, other than being an arm of the state, subject to all the malignancies that entails, is one of the Biggest Whore Houses around.

The authority on the subject is “Stephanie Gutmann, a Jewish woman out of Manhattan,” as Fred Reed forthrightly fingers her. Reed writes the following about Stephanie’s apolitical “reportorial” effort, which,

[D]escribed perfectly the fraud and double standards used to make women look successful in the army. Much of it would be hard to credit, except that I had seen it from outside … In the course of events I met Steph a couple of times, chatted on the phone, and lost contact with her. The book got few and bad reviews because it was not what the media wanted to hear. It was a fine book.

As is “Steph’s” Other Book. Read about it here. (I too have had a pleasant exchange or two with this lovely lady.)

Update (Dec. 23): To the distracting diversions in the Comments Section, including my responses (by necessity), let me repeat: The Posting Policy of BAB states: “Please note that ‘Barely A Blog’ is private property. Posts are published at the proprietor’s discretion.” Apparently this requires explanation, as participants prefer the fun of expressing themselves without the discipline of acquaintance with the philosophy espoused here.

THE CONFUSION about this statement demonstrates even more the need for participants to become “vaguely familiar with the political philosophy championed on this forum and the Mother Site, ilanamercer.com. Accordingly, there is no such thing as absolute free speech; there are only absolute rights of private property. Speech is circumscribed by private property rights. I’m afraid you may deliver a disquisition in my virtual or tangible living room only if I let you so do.