Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Bad News: ObamaCare May Be Terminally ILL

Just recently, the healthcare insurance giant, United Healthcare announced that it may leave the ObamaCare exchanges at the end of 2016; claiming losses as the reason.  Now, ask yourself: If the nation's largest insurer can't operate successfully in the exchanges, then how can smaller companies survive?  Well that question can be easily answered by something called the "Risk Corridors" provision of ObamaCare.

Under the Risk Corridors provision, insurers are given protections for extreme losses in the first three years of their operation in the exchanges (2014, 2015, and 2016).  What this means is, if an insurer loses 3% in profits, that insurer absorbs those losses completely.  However, if those losses exceed 3%, but are less than 8%, the federal government will compensate the insurer for 50% of the losses. If they are greater than 8%, the federal government will cover 80%.  Similarly, if an insurer's profits are more than 3% but less than 8%, the insurer must hand over 50% of those profits to the feds.  Over 8%, the insurer can only keep 20%.

This year, it was reported by Health and Human Services that, in 2014, the insurers are owed $2.87 billion dollars for losses, while the government is only owed $362 million in excess profits.  This is a clear indication that insurance under ObamaCare is a losing proposition.  The fact that United Healthcare is complaining about losses so late in 2015, means that the trend of 2014 had continued for United again this year.

A further indication of extreme losses comes from the fact that, of the 23 co-op insurers that were established by the Obama Administration at a cost of $2.5 billion dollars to provide competitive pricing and wider acceptance by doctors, 2 last year and 12 this year have gone belly up, leaving tens of thousands struggling to find new insurers who would include their existing doctors. For example 200 critically ill cancer patients who were being treated at Sloan Kettering, were left with no other insurer who would cover the cost that hospital was charging when their New York co-op went bankrupt.

Lastly, the fact that insurers are struggling to keep above water is reflected by the rate increases they submitted for approval by the state regulatory authorities.  In July, the New York Times found that the insurers were asking for increases of between 20 and 40 percent.  But, apparently, those increases had been disapproved and set substantially lower.  That ls because Health and Human Services only recently announced that rates will only go up an average of 7.5% for next year.  That means that the insurers might be exposed to losses of anywhere between 12.5% to 32.5% which will, again, be covered partially by the Risk Corridors provision.

Simply, as ObamaCare goes into open enrollment for 2017 and as the Risk Corridors support ends, there might not be an insurer left to sell in the exchanges.  And, if any are left, it will be too expensive for anyone to afford to buy or maintain coverage unless the insurance is heavily subsidized by the federal government.  At that point, ObamaCare will just implode.

Of course, you can expect Democrats to keep ObamaCare alive by wanting to extend or expand the Risk Corridors program.  After all, you can't just leave millions of people without any further insurance.  If that happens, it will just be a matter of time before a single-payer, fully government funded and controlled, health insurance program will come to be.  Something the Democrats have wanted from the very beginning.


United Healthcare may pull out of the exchanges: What does this mean for Obamacare?:

Risk Corridor Claims By Insurers Far Exceed Contributions (Updated):

Even If You Like Your Obamacare Co-Op Insurance, You Probably Can’t Keep It:

Health Insurance Companies Seek Big Rate Increases for 2016:

Obamacare premiums to rise an average of 7.5% for benchmark plan:

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Have U.S. Sales Of Electric Cars Peaked?

In the years 2010 and 2011, Americans only bought a total of 17,425 electric vehicles (EV's).  The following year, 3 times that amount were sold; putting another 52,607 on the road.  In 2013, that number was almost doubled to 97,507.  But in 2014, Americans only bought 25,542 more EV's than they did the year before; bringing the total sales for that year to 123,049.  Even so, that number represented 38% of all worldwide sales of EV's.  

However, 2015 is a completely different story.  In the first 10 months of this year, only 92,347 cars were sold.  Compared to the same period in 2014, this represents a decline of 8,018 vehicles  sold; year-to-date.   Also, America's 38% of all sales in 2014 fell to just 25% of the worldwide sales in 2015.  So, obviously, the slowdown is isolated to this country.

While a one-year decline doesn't make a trend, it could be the beginning of one.  That reality is reinforced by the fact that the growth in American EV sales has been slowing each year.  Certainly, as an all-around vehicle, electric cars are pretty impractical with limited range. Couple that with the knowledge that you have to find a place to charge them whenever you run their batteries down. Another reason may be that the price of gas has fallen from $3.76 a gallon in May of 2014 to the lowest price since 2006 at $2.39 in October of this year.

It will be interesting to see if the decline of sales continues.  Also, when it comes to saving the planet, putting less than 400,000 cars on the road since 2010 is hardly a "green" winner in a country that has more than 254 million passenger cars.  Additionally, the tax payers are on the hook for nearly $3 billion federal dollars since 2010 from handing out $7,500 subsidies to just 383,000 buyers of EV's; mostly a bunch of wealthy environmentalists.  $3 billion dollars is a hollow effort to save the planet.  Further, when people decide to trade-in their old EV's, they find that they take a big financial hit  since there is little demand for used ones.  There's no rebate and the fact that someone might have to replace a very expensive lithium ion battery is quite a turnoff.


Monthly Plug-In Sales Scorecard:

Electric Vehicle Incentives:

U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices:

Passenger vehicles in the United States:

Resale Prices Tumble on Electric Cars:


Monday, November 23, 2015

Why Radical Islam Exists and May Never Be Defeated

This is the seed of radical Islam:

Thousands of Madrassas (schools) like this exist around the world; starting in the 1970's.  In them, children are generally taught to take the Qur'an literally in a brand of austere Islam called Wahhabism.  For all too many, this is the only education they will ever receive.

While there are numerous verses in the Qur'an that teach peace and tranquility, there are many that don't.  Those that don't are based on the belief that there can only be one god in the world and his name is Allah; and that there can only be one religion in the world and that is Islam.

So, these children are taught that "unbelievers" (infidels) -- which, by the way, include modern day secularized Islamics -- must either be converted to fundamental Islam or be killed or enslaved.  Thus, they are taken back to the earliest days of Islam under the Prophet Muhammad.  A time when the Prophet, himself, spent the last 10 years of his life as a military commander in his effort to spread Islam through wars against Christians, Jews, and Pagans.

What should concern us all is the depth to which these Madrassas have radicalized Islam. In France, for example -- there are "No Go Zones" where the French government does not intervene and where Muslims are left to govern and educate themselves, and where support for ISIS is the highest of all other European countries.  27% of 18 to 24 year-olds, and 22% of the 25 to 34 age group support ISIS.

Simply, it is impossible to stop the radicalization unless the Madrassas are shutdown. 


Wahhabism: A Saudi Time Bomb:

The Quran's Verses of Violence:

KORAN commands to kill infidels:

Military career of Muhammad:

Muslim conquests:

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic: Sharia Law Muslim 'No-Go' Zones in France:

27% of Young French Muslims (1.62 million) back the Islamic State, poll finds:


Saturday, November 21, 2015

Just 8 Out of 10,000 Syrian Refugees To Repeat Paris Terror Attack

It took only 8 terrorists to kill more than 129 people and wound 3 times that many in the attacks at 7 sites in Paris on November 13.  Yet, despite this, President Obama still plans to initially immigrate 10,000 Syrian refugees.  In addition, 72 Democrats want him to accept 100,000.  With those numbers, the odds that 8 terrorists could hide in plain site are extremely high.  In fact, I'm sure that ISIS isn't so dumb that they wouldn't take advantage of the refugee influx to the U.S. as a means to do us serious harm.  Is that the risks that the President is willing to take on behalf of our "values"?  Tell that to the families of those who may die or be wounded because of his flawed actions.

Obama and those Democrats better hope there isn't another Paris-like attack (or worse) on our soil before the 2016 election cycle.


At Least 129 Dead, More Than 350 Wounded in Paris Terror Attack:

President Obama Calls Rejection of Syrian Refugees a "Betrayal of our values":

72 House Democrats ask Obama to take in 100,000 Syrian Refugees:

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Obama's False Argument On Syrian Refugees

While in the Philippines, Obama spoke out against those Republicans who would close our borders and block Syrian refugees from coming into this country.  While doing so, he falsely implied that the GOP is "scared of widows and 3-year-old orphans".  No, Mr. Obama, the GOP are instead afraid of the potential fighting age men who might harm Americans in the same fashion as in the Paris massacre.  To that point, I present this picture of Syrian refugees entering Serbia:

I see two women and one child in this picture.  The majority are men who could very well do harm to Americans.   But, we also know from the Paris attack that one of the eight terrorists was a woman.

Are we supposed to believe that all 20,000 refugees, that are coming to the U.S. under Obama's directive, will be properly vetted?  Think about that.  Are we to assume that Bashar al-Assad has provided us with birth records and arrest records for all these people? I don't think so.  What are we going to do? Have them check a box indicating that they aren't a terrorist.

Don't forget.  This is the same Obama Administration whose FBI interviewed the Boston Marathon bombers and Fort Hood shooter and didn't see them as threats.


Obama Chides Anti-Refugee Politicians for Being 'Scared of Widows and 3-Year-Old Orphans':

Source of Image above: Alvand, 18, from Syria takes a selfie with his friends as they walk along a railway track after crossing into Hungary from Serbia last week. (Marko Djurica/Reuters):

FBI agents interviewed bombing suspect in 2011 -

Fort Hood Shooting: FBI Ignored Evidence Against Nidal Hasan for Political Correctness:


Wednesday, November 18, 2015

The ISIS Name Game

Years ago, pop-singer Prince changed his name to a symbol which had no translation.  So, the media started to refer to him as the "Artist formerly known as Prince".  Well, when it comes to referring to the terrorist group formerly known as ISIS, confusion also reigns.  This is because the acronym doesn't translate well into English.

Most people, including the media, use the acronym ISIS thinking that it means the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria".  But the last "S" really stands for al-Sham (a borderless area called "Greater Syria" which includes Syria).  ISIS itself, prefers to call themselves the Islamic State or "IS" as declared by their current religious leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  In doing so, any concept of border limitations is removed.

Our President, and most of his minions, prefer the acronym "ISIL" or the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". But "Levant" is a variant of the Arabic "al-Sham" and much more restrictive of the geographical area that al-Sham implies.  Also, by taking the last "S" meaning Syria out of "ISIS", some believe the intention is to avoid focusing on the mess he created in Syria by not taking the lead to take down Assad.

John Kerry, on the other hand, is much more free swinging.  Sometimes he uses the term "ISIS".  Other times, when being a good Obama soldier, he sticks to "ISIL".  But, increasingly he refers to "ISIS" as "Daesh" which is actually a closer English interpretation of the original name "al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham".  The trouble with "Daesh" is that it can also mean things that can be insulting.  Thus, al-Baghdadi has banned the use of the term throughout his so-called Islamic State.  To al-Baghdadi, its use it and lose your tongue.  So, when Kerry and French President Hollande use Daesh, they are intentionally (I hope) insulting ISIS.

Lastly, the Iraqi government has started to refer to ISIS as "dookh" which stands for "Dawlat Al Islamiya Al Khalifa".  However, this, too, is considered an insult because it is closely related to the Arabic word meaning "confused".  As if things weren't already confusing.

Anyway, we're at war with some acronym that rapes, kills, beheads, throws gays off buildings, destroys irreplaceable antiquities, takes down a Russian aircraft, attacks Paris, and threatens to attack Washington D.C..  I think that if the world wants to collectively defeat these bastards, it should at least come together on a single name for the enemy.


Why is John Kerry referring to ISIS as "Daesh"?:

John Kerry defends Syria strategy ahead of peace talks:

Words matter in ‘ISIS’ war, so use ‘Daesh’:

Militants in Iraq and Syria are trying to re-create a nation that never existed:

Obama's Use Of ISIL, Not ISIS, Tells Another Story:

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant:

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Obama's Delusional War Against ISIS

In a press conference at the G20 summit, President Obama touted the fact that we have dropped 8,000 bombs against ISIS.  According to Mother Jones those 8,000 bombs are a result of 17 sorties a day; releasing 60 bombs each.  Just hours before the Paris terrorist attack, Obama said his actions in Iraq and Syria have "contained" ISIS.

But, understand that, compared to other wars, 17 sorties a day is simply a pinprick.  In the 13 years that we were directly engaged in the Vietnam war and before that war was "Vietnamized" in 1973 and we ceased all direct action, we conducted 1.9 million sorties.  That's an average of 400 air attacks per day.  Yet, we still weren't able to win.   On average, the daily count of bombs dropped was 1400.

Believing that dropping 60 bombs a day is containing ISIS is delusional. By the way, containing is not defeating.  Obama continues to believe that ISIS is on the "run" and Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat.  Really?


Obama Criticized for Claim That ISIS Is 'Contained' - ABC:

What Kind of Bombing Campaign Against ISIS Do Republicans Want?:

General Statistics-- Vietnam:

Feinstein Breaks With Obama, ISIS Is not "Contained":

Obama: ISIS Is On The Run, Al Qaeda is defeated - YouTube: