Author: New Neo

Here are some questions from Victor Davis Hanson on how the precedents Obama has set could result in a changed America even after he leaves office: The nation has grown used to the idea that what the president says is probably either untrue or irrelevant —...

The Obama administration had a bright suggestion for their insurance companies (they do seem to belong to the governement, don't they?):

The Obama administration said Thursday it would allow millions of Americans whose insurance policies had been canceled to purchase bare-bones plans next year, in another 11th-hour tweak to the law likely to cause consternation among health insurers. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a group of six senators in a letter that people whose policies had been canceled because of new requirements under the Affordable Care Act would be allowed to purchase "catastrophic" plans. Those plans previously had been restricted under the new law to people under the age of 30 or those who qualified for a set of specific hardship exemptions.

Basically, this means they've expanded the definition of "hardship" to include "screwed by the Obamacare regulations." Come to think of it, that makes sense. In fact, though, it's even later than the eleventh hour. Many insurers are saying this move would amplify the chaos in an already chaotic situation. The Washington Post also reports:

The Obama administration on Thursday night significantly relaxed the rules of the federal health-care law for millions of consumers whose individual insurance policies have been canceled, saying they can buy bare-bones plans or entirely avoid a requirement that most Americans have health coverage. The surprise announcement, days before the Dec. 23 deadline for people to choose plans that will begin Jan. 1, triggered an immediate backlash from the health insurance industry and raised fairness questions about a law intended to promote affordable and comprehensive coverage on a widespread basis

I have a question for Obama, Sebelius, and the rest: if the individual policies cancelled were such terrible "junk," why are you allowing those who originally had them to purchase a type of policy you defined as "junk" in the first place? Might it be because catastrophic insurance can sometimes be a valid choice for people, and not "junk" at all?

Take a look at the wording of this WaPo headline: "Obama Suffers Most From Year of Turmoil, Poll Finds." Accompanying it is this photo: The article goes on to describe the precipitous decline in Obama's standing in approval polls:

His position is all the more striking when compared with his standing a year ago, as he was preparing for his second inauguration after a solid reelection victory. That high note proved fleeting as the president faced a series of setbacks, culminating in the botched rollout of his Affordable Care Act two months ago.

Some may think reporters and editors are simply clumsy or indifferent writers, and sometimes they are. But much of the time they choose their words (and photos) with exquisite and subtle care. They also realize that most people only look at the headlines and photos of most articles, and that those are therefore the most important elements, and that even people who do read the article often read only the first few paragraphs. In thisWaPo article, the headline and photo have been chosen to suggest that Obama is a suffering victim---in fact, the greatest victim---of a series of unfortunate circumstances that have befallen him. He's nearly a martyr. And the text (the excerpt quoted above is the second paragraph in the piece) reinforces that idea by this phrase, "faced a series of setbacks." Passive voice; no actor.

Both Democrats and Republicans have talked about the nuclear option for years---usually in favor of it when they're the majority party and against it when in the minority. But it's all been talk, till now. So why did the Democrats finally do it? In the Wall...

Well, well, well: it seems that with Obamacare, the insurers got some insurance against loss, too. Just another case of needing to pass the bill to find out what nuggets were hidden within its deep recesses:

If an exchange plan's performance varies in either direction by more than 3 percent, it either collects a subsidy from federal taxpayers via the Department of Health and Human Services to recoup part (50 to 80 percent) of further losses, or it has to kick back a similar share of the excess profit. Ideally, the money kicked back by profitable health plans can cover the subsidies for plans that lose. But unlike with the other two R's, there is no legal requirement that the numbers balance or limit on what can be paid. So imagine that we do enter a “death spiral” situation in which a large number of exchange health plans lose big and very few turn sizable profits...taxpayers potentially face a multi-billion dollar bailout of health insurers for losses outside the corridor. Insurers are therefore safe. Politicians who back Obamacare may not be. If insurers' costs do rise to the level that they require a taxpayer bailout, they will also be announcing massive hikes to their insurance premiums for calendar 2015.

This news may not get the widespread publicity it deserves unless the death spiral begins. But if it does, watch out.

Bill Clinton deceived the American people in a flagrant manner when he said, shaking his finger: Whatever narrow legal definition Clinton had used in his deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit, virtually no one listening to what he said in that clip would think he was defining "sexual relations" in such an arcane manner. When a president addresses the American public, his words are taken with their usual meaning. And the same goes for Obama's oft-repeated pledge. It had an obvious meaning that completely resists any spin that operatives may try to put on it. "Everybody" knows what it meant, and everybody is correct.

In a Slate article entitled "Canada has death panels, and that's a good thing," Yale law student Adam Goldenberg applauds the idea.

The "experts and wise community members" (Goldenberg's words) who make up Ontario's Consent and Capacity Board have the final say and can overrule a family's decision about whether to continue life support for an ill member if there is a dispute between the family and the patient's doctors. Who are these people, and why are they given that power? The group is a government-appointed board heavy with lawyers (and not necessarily those whose practice involves relevant areas of law), psychiatrists, and an assortment of others from the community with a great range of professions, many of them seemingly unrelated to the task at hand. All the physicians on the board appear to be psychiatrists, which is most likely a reflection of the fact that the bulk of its business (80%) involves issues of involuntary commitment to mental institutions and/or decisions about mental capacity to consent to or refuse treatment, rather than its work as a "death panel." Goldenberg notes that at present in Canada and the US, many disputes over end of life care are decided by judges:

When these family members disagree with a patient’s doctors, and when the doctors are nonetheless determined to act, the dispute generally goes to court, where it can take months or even years to resolve. That is how it works in other Canadian and American jurisdictions, anyway.

But in the US such disputes have mostly been between family members about end-of-life decisions, a la the Schiavo case.

Japan may be about to find out. As you might imagine, the "don't want to have sex" crowd in Japan doesn't include all the young people, not by a long shot. But it's a worrisome percentage, especially considering that this is an age group where the blood usually runs hot. As you also might imagine, the phenomenon involves more women than men, although the number of guys is not insignificant:

A survey in 2011 found that 61% of unmarried men and 49% of women aged 18-34 were not in any kind of romantic relationship, a rise of almost 10% from five years earlier. Another study found that a third of people under 30 had never dated at all. (There are no figures for same-sex relationships.) Although there has long been a pragmatic separation of love and sex in Japan – a country mostly free of religious morals – sex fares no better. A survey earlier this year by the Japan Family Planning Association (JFPA) found that 45% of women aged 16-24 "were not interested in or despised sexual contact". More than a quarter of men felt the same way.

A sex and relationship counselor in Japan has this to say:

"Both men and women say to me they don't see the point of love. They don't believe it can lead anywhere," says Aoyama. "Relationships have become too hard."

I very much doubt they're actually any harder than they used to be. But their rewards are a great deal less, especially in Japan, so the cost-benefit analysis is quite different. The article goes on to describe the reasons: women in the workforce whose promotion chances end at marriage and who often quit after having children because Japanese firms demand such unusually long hours of its employees, hosts of young people living with parents, ease of single living, and immersion in the world of computers rather than entering the messy fray of human contact. There are other possible reasons that the article doesn't mention. I merely list the factors that come to mind; one could easily write a book on the subject:

Despite frustration, good things can still be accomplished....