Did Marco Rubio Kill Obamacare? "You bet he did"

Legal Insurrection

. . . "Laskey pointed to a 2013 article written by Joshua Green which explained why Rubio’s legislation could be deadly to Obamacare:

When the law was written, the winners and losers were expected to balance out, making the risk corridors budget-neutral. But if too many insurers lose money, the government may need to step in. While the ACA’s risk corridors are meant to transfer money from winners to losers, the text of the law (it’s Section 1342, for those following at home) makes clear that the government will pay insurers whose costs end up being significantly higher than anticipated. This is what Rubio is seizing on in his new bill—he’s calling it a “bailout” and trying to stop it.

There’s definitely some validity to the scenario Rubio is warning about, although no one can yet say whether it will happen—or, if it does, what the cost might be to taxpayers. Obama’s decision to allow people in the individual market to keep their plans certainly raises the likelihood. A Nov. 14 letter to Congress from the American Academy of Actuaries warned that if “lower-cost individuals retain their prior coverage, and higher-cost people move to new coverage, the medical costs for those purchasing new insurance would be higher than expected.” This would create a set of conditions “more likely to trigger risk corridor payments.”

If Rubio were truly motivated by concern that taxpayers might end up footing a “bailout,” there’s an easy solution: Write a bill stipulating that risk corridors must be budget-neutral. Presto, problem solved. But Rubio’s bill is far more sweeping than that—it eliminates risk corridors altogether by striking Section 1342 from the law. This is a clue that his real motivation isn’t to eliminate the possibility of a payout but to eliminate the Affordable Care Act altogether.

"In October, the Obama Administration confirmed Senator Rubio’s fight against taxpayer-funded bailouts of health insurance companies under ObamaCare succeeded in saving taxpayers over $2.5 billion this past year:" . . .

Cartoons tell the story

The French get platitudes but no substance

"For Barack Obama, Tuesday’s White House meeting was an opportunity to project resolve in the face of barbarism. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama was simply not up to the task. On every foreign policy front, the Obama presidency has weakened rather than strengthened America’s position."

ISIS threat: Obama offers Hollande plenty of platitudes but no substance

. . . "There was little sign, however, of President Obama shifting away from his “leading from behind” approach when he met with his French counterpart on Tuesday.

"At the White House there were plenty of platitudes from the American president about U.S-French relations and France’s status as America’s “oldest ally.” But there was no substance in his remarks." . . .

http://netrightdaily.com/2013/01/obama-strong/

America sinks fast under this president

Ralph Peters Is Worried About Obama: ‘My God, We’re in Even Deeper Trouble Than I Thought’

Lt Col Ralph Peters (Ret.) confessed to Bill O’Reilly Monday that he is deeply worried about the state of affairs Obama has put us, calling him the most destructive president since Jefferson Davis.

“Listening to the president presser in Turkey, this morning I thought –  My God, we’re in even deeper trouble than I thought,” Peters said.

“The only president on the American continent who has done more damage was actually Jefferson Davis – the president of the Confederate States of America. Charles [Krauthammer] used the word ‘delusional.’ It is just beyond delusional – this guy is so arrogant – and at the same time so sensitive, he cannot admit that he’s wrong – and boy is he wrong and has been wrong about Islamic terror.”. . . 

Everything Bad Skyrockets Under Obama, Part II
" . . It was something I had been noticing for a long time because it was just one thing after another and another and another and finally the VA scandal spurred me to make a list. Throughout 2015 I have often been reminded of that post: the nationwide spike in crime,  the distressing increase in racism(both ways), the growth of violent crimes against whites, and finally the spike in worldwide terrorism deaths –  made me think of it." . . . 

The commander in chief’s meltdown in the polls

"President Obama’s petulant news conference in Turkey insisting there is no need to shift our strategy for fighting the Islamic State might have been the low point in his presidency. But that does not mean he’s hit rock bottom. Democrats and Republicans alike have criticized him for both tone-deafness and self-delusion, and the longer he digs in, the more frustrated — and scared — the public is likely to become.

"The public’s confidence in him as commander in chief is sinking. The Post-ABC News poll is just the latest survey to find a reversal from 51 percent-45 percent approval before the attacks to 50 percent-46 percent disapproval afterward. Moreover:" . . .

"The same liberals who, without proof, insisted “Bush lied, people died,” will — one can be sure — rush to absolve the White House of any effort to cook the books."

Some 'General Advice' for President Obama

"Anyone seeking a yardstick by which to measure how far the Democratic Party has fallen needs look no farther than the following "tale of two presidents."

The facts of yesterday speak for themselves.  The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
[…]
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
[…]
With confidence in our armed forces – with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph – so help us God.
December 8, 1941 – President Franklin Roosevelt after the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

What I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people and to protect the people in the region who are getting killed and to protect our allies and people like France.  I'm too busy for that.
November 16, 2015 – President Barack Obama after ISIS's attacks on multiple targets in Paris, the latest of multiple terrorist atrocities.

"Too busy" doing what?  Fighting the "real enemy" – global warming climate change?"  Full Article

Clueless Hillary: 'Muslims Have Nothing Whatsoever To Do With Terrorism'

Investors.com

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tours the Sultan Hassan Mosque with President Obama in Cairo, Egypt, on June 4, 2009

. . . "Just days after eight Muslims belonging to the Islamic State massacred 130 Parisians while praising Allah, the Democratic front-runner schooled the Council on Foreign Relations on the non-Muslim threat.

"Let's be clear," Clinton lectured. "Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."

"If by "nothing," she means everything, she is correct.

"Within hours of her delusional statement, another Muslim terror group, Boko Haram, killed 27 at the Radisson hotel in Mali's capital city, while forcing guests to recite verses from the Quran.

"Yet this was not Islam, either, we are told. We heard the same politically correct claptrap after Muslims bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and after 19 more Muslims attacked Washington and New York on Sept. 11, 2001, slaughtering almost 3,000. And again after Muslims attacked Madrid, Bali and London. And when Muslim snipers shot up Washington. And when a Muslim massacred soldiers at Fort Hood. And when Muslims slaughtered more than 60, including two dozen children and three pregnant women, at a shopping mall in Kenya. And again after Muslims bombed the Boston marathon. 

"And this year, after a Muslim gunned down five soldiers in Chattanooga.

"Though the latest denials are demonstrably false, at least apologists have dropped the risible "Religion of Peace" mantra." . . .

A Russia expert explains how Putin will likely respond to his downed plane

Vox World

"Q: Why would Russia fly into Turkey's airspace in the first place?

"A:There are a few possible reasons.

"First is pilot error. They were operating near the border and so strayed over by mistake. It's unlikely, given modern avionics, but nonetheless we can't completely exclude the possibility.

"The second thing is that this could, since Turkey is a NATO state, have been Russia just trying to flex its political-diplomatic muscles. Wanting to make the point that they can do this with impunity — which, of course, they have done in NATO's northern reaches." . . .