Monday, 25 November 2013


Ken Berwitz

You think the 5 million (so far) people who have lost their insurance because of ObamaCare is its low point?

In the immortal words of countless Brooklynites, fuggedaboudit.  That is just one shoe.  The other, much larger shoe, has yet to drop.

Excerpted from the editorial in today's Chicago Tribune, titled "Employers could drop health care":

If President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders think the outcry against Obamacare is fierce now, watch if millions more Americans get blindsided with the news that they'll be forced into these dysfunctional government online marketplaces. Some will face higher premiums or higher deductibles, and they'll be required to share private medical and financial information on a website with a questionable security firewall, opening them to fraudsters, hackers and cyberchaos.

The full brunt of Obamacare's impact on Americans is still gathering. Every law creates winners and losers, but with this law so far, the losers are piling up:

...Millions of Americans have seen their individual coverage canceled and are scrambling to find new policies.

...People who gain coverage through smaller employers are at risk of getting cancellation notices next year.

...Hospitals are bracing for financial turbulence as out-of-pocket deductibles climb and people find themselves liable for more of their medical bills before insurance kicks in, The Tribune's Peter Frost reports.

In the past, hospitals could count on insurers to pay 80 to 90 percent of the cost of services, leaving the rest to patients. For patients with high-deductible plans, however, the insurer's share drops to as low as 60 percent, with consumers on the hook for the balance.

Translation:  ObamaCare is going to relieve countless additional citizens of their health care insurance.  Estimates cited in previous blogs put the eventual total at tens of millions - one has it as high as 93 million.

I can already hear Obama & Co.'s excuse:  "Hey, we're not the ones dropping you, it's your companies.  They can keep the insurance you have and just pay the difference". 

The fact that this "difference" may define whether those companies stay competitive, or stay open at all?  So what?  Aren't all companies a bunch of rich guys anyway?  So what if they have to pay more, maybe raise the costs of their products and services.  That's their problem.

ObamaCare is an unworkable monstrosity;  a fact that more and more voters, very much including Obama voters, are ruefully coming to grips with every day.

Sadly their realization has come a year too late too truncate this woeful presidency.  But the good news is that it is a year in time for the midterm elections which, if they go well, just might stop the Obama train wreck for the final two years of its run.


Ken Berwitz

Apropos of nothing political...

If I get one more effing call from "Sharon, your local google specialist", or "Stacy with wonderful news about verizon" I'm going to figure out a way to get these two simulated pains in the rectum to call each other as much as they both call me, and see how Google and Verizon like it.

And, yes, I'm on a telemarketing no-call list, for all the good it does me.

Ok, I feel better now.  Back to politics, where "simulated pains in the rectum" is a middle-of-the-road definition.

Zeke .... .... It might be coincidence, or maybe they just lost interest (stopped getting revenue), but 8 or 12 months ago, I was getting constant "change your electric supplier to our company" robo-calls. . . . . . .. I reported (on line) these unwanted intrusions . . . . and - and - and - they actually stopped ! ! (11/26/13)


Ken Berwitz

Leave it to the Obama-loving, Israel hating New York Times, to delightedly support the "deal" with Iran that buys a terrorist state time - 6 months at least - to complete its development of nuclear weapons, as it lies to Obama, Kerry and the rest of the world.  Just as it has lied about its nuclear ambitions and development for years and years.

From the Times' lead editorial in today's newspaper, here are the first two paragraphs - in rust, with my comments in blue.  It is as far as I can get without expelling breakfast on my keboard:

The interim nuclear deal between Iran and the major powers is an important step toward resolving the increasingly dangerous dispute over Iran's progress on production of a nuclear weapon. President Obama and President Hassan Rouhani of Iran deserve credit for resisting fierce domestic opposition and a 30-year history of animosity between the two countries to get to this point. WHAT point?  The easing of sanctions enables Iran to continue with its nuclear program, while lying to the world about it - just as it has lied to the world about its nuclear program every step of the way for years.  Can Obama, and Kerry, and the geniuses on the New York Times editorial board possibly be this stupid? 

Even though the temporary agreement does not achieve permanent and total dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, no one can seriously argue that it doesn't make the world safer. Stop right there.  That's the end of any credibility for this editorial.  A temporary agreement, the nuclear program remains intact...and noa one can seriously conclude that it doesn't make the world safer?  What a stunningly idiotic claim.  It would freeze key aspects of Iran's program for six months and lay the ground for negotiating a comprehensive, permanent deal. But it doesn't freeze them all, and it requires that Iran abide by the agreement, which Iran has exactly zero history of doing, and it promises only that there would be another "negotiation" in the future, which therefore means it promises nothing of any substance.  The alternatives are ratcheting up sanctions and possible military action, with no assurance that those steps would stop Iran's nuclear advances. That's right.  No assurance, just like allowing Iran to continue with its nuclear program offers no assurance.  So if the "no assurance" issue cancels out, the difference is either doing something to stop Iran's nuclear program or giving Iran at least a half-year to continue it...which, according to many experts, will get Iran to the point of having nuclear weapons ready to launch against Israel.  An average third-grader could figure out which is the better idea, but the Times editorial board cannnot - or maybe it can and doesn't give a damn what happens to Israel.  You decide which it is.  A negotiated solution is unquestionably better; it is alarming to hear Israeli politicians reject it in extremist terms and threaten unspecified unilateral action.  The Times finds it "alarming" that Israel rejects this BS non-deal?  Israel is the sincle most likely country Iran will attack with those weapons, and the Times is alarmed that Israel doesn't want Iran to have them, and calls the people against this deal extremists?  Holy effing excrement.

The editorial board - make that idiotorial board - of the New York Times is a lost cause.  The left wing, Israel hating (and ancestrally Jewish, by the way) ownership of this once-proud newspaper have sunk it beyond redemption.  Similarly, the Obama/Kerry axis in Washington is hopelessly incompetent - and hopelessly naive to trust a country that everyone and his brother knows is 100% untrustworthy.

But, then again, who cares?  After all, if Iran unleashes a nuclear attack it won't be against the USA, will it?  It will be against Israel, which Iran - continuously for years, and as recently as within the past week - says in so many words that it intends to annihilate.

And if Israelis are "alarmed" by this they must be "extremists".  Just ask the idiotorial board of The New York Times.

I now expect that Israel, with the backing of other countries fearful of what Iran might do with nuclear weapons (very much including enemies of Israel, like Saudi Arabia, which will temporarily suspend Jew-hatred in the interests of saving their own skins) are going to do what Obama, Kerry and the New York Times is telling them they should not.

I wish them every possible success.


Ken Berwitz

I am trying as best I can to have sympathy for these folks....and not quite getting there.

Here are the first two paragraphs of Jonathan Allen and Jennifer Haberkorn's article at

Veteran House Democratic aides are sick over the insurance prices they'll pay under Obamacare, and they're scrambling to find a cure.

"In a shock to the system, the older staff in my office (folks over 59) have now found out their personal health insurance costs (even with the government contribution) have gone up 3-4 times what they were paying before," Minh Ta, chief of staff to Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), wrote to fellow Democratic chiefs of staff in an email message obtained by POLITICO. "Simply unacceptable."

Two questions for Minh Ta:

1) Did your boss, Gwen Moore (D-Wis), vote for this unworkable monstrosity?  Yes or no?

2) Did your boss demand that Republicans have input into ObamaCare so that there would be any vestige of bipartisanship to the legislation?  Yes or no?

If they answer to both is no, then here's one more:  Do you think someone like me should give a damn whether you don't like what ObamaCare is doing to your health insurance costs?  Yes or no?

As I said at the beginning of this blog, I'm trying to.  I realize the Minh Tas of the world did not cast those votes, nor did they deny input to the other side of the aisle. 

But their bosses - the people who hired them and pay their salary - are the ones who did.  And Minh Ta - along with how many others - stayed on board anyway.  So it is hard to muster much sympathy. 

I hope they understand my problem on this.


Ken Berwitz

John Podhoretz, writing in today's New York Post, has an excellent article about how Barack Obama's Accomplice Media have both enabled him to do things that would have taken down any Republican President, and emboldened him to behave the same way regarding ObamaCare....which, Mr. Podhoretz suggests, might have been a breach too far.

A few excerpts (which, I hope, cause you to read the entire piece):

People are puzzled: Why would Barack Obama have lied about how wonderfully everything was going to go with ObamaCare when officials in his administration knew perfectly well that disaster was going to strike?

They did it because they could. They did it because nearly five years in the White House had given Obama and his team confidence they would not face the music and they could finesse the problems until they got fixed.

Consider the events that would have been unprecedented scandals in a Republican administration - with teams of reporters digging and scratching daily at every nook and cranny in every bureaucratic corridor - that have instead been covered dutifully but with relatively little passion and almost no follow-up. Why? Because it would have hurt Obama, that's why.

Attorney General Eric Holder has survived three scandals that would have felled a Republican.

The IRSs own acknowledgement that it had targeted conservative groups with anti-liberal agendas has led to shamed retirements, hasty changes at the top of the agency and officials pleading the Fifth Amendment.

The unconscionable behavior of State Department and White House officials during and after the killing of four Americans in Benghazi at the height of the 2012 race - during which the American people were deliberately and consciously misled...

In 2011, the president said that owing to Republican recalcitrance in the House of Representatives, he would use his executive authority to get things done. And he has..."simply opted not to enforce or defend (the law of the United States)".

Moreover, to strengthen his hand with Hispanic voters in 2012, he ordered the Justice Department to follow certain provisions of a law governing illegal immigrants that has yet to be approved by the Congress. That is unprecedented.

He has always had the protection of his liberal base.

He has always had the protection of Senate Democrats...

And he has always had the protection of the mainstream media.

But this time was different...This time he hasn't gotten away with it.


I again urge you to read Mr. Podhoretz's piece, which explains each point much more fully than the above excerpts could. 

As you can see, he points out that President Obama has not gotten away with the ObamaCare disaster...yet (which suggests he thinks Mr. Obama might be able to wriggle free again). 

Personally, I don't think Mr. Obama can get past this one, for two reasons:

1. It hits people in their pocketbooks.  Things like Fast and Furious, the Lie-RS scandal, Benghazi, the continual foreign policy blunders, etc. are abstract to many voters.  Losing health insurance, and/or losing a trusted doctor, and/or getting nailed with impossibly high premiums, and/or being unable to log onto the web site and enroll, are not abstract.  They are personal, and unlikely to be forgotten.

2) President Obama is seen as having lied to the public. We're not talking about a "politician" lie here - the kind most people expect from them; we are talking about a lie to our faces about something that affects us personally.  Those are the lies people don't give politicians a pass on, and don't forget any time soon.

Am I right?  Who can say for sure.  But I certainly hope so.


Ken Berwitz

Today's Quote Of The Day award goes to Ayatollah ali khameini, the true ruler of Iran.

Here is what he had to say about the so-called "deal" put together by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry and his puppet, Iranian President hassan rouhani:

"I thank God that...the new government...was able to legitimize the Iranian nation's nuclear program on the international stage and take the initial step in a way that the nuclear rights and the enrichment rights of the Iranian nation are acknowledged by world powers where before they had tried to deny them, and (the agreement will) open the way for future big strides in technical and economic progress."

Yep.  100% correct.  I couldn't have said it better.

khameini gets Quote Of The Day honors because he sees the reality of this deal so much more clearly than the hopelessly overmatched, obtuse pair he just exacted it from. 

Now khameini can join Vladimir Putin and Syrian President/dictator/mass murderer bashar al-assad in laughing at what malleable dolts the USA has gifted them with as "negotiating partners".

I count the seconds until January 20th, 2017.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!