Think Progress, Salon promote stifling of dissent over climate change

Tolerance

Yep.

Not exactly a surprise that these two ultra-liberal sites are proponents of shutuppery, but worth documenting all the same, no matter whether it happens here at home – or abroad.  Headline from Think Progress:

To Improve Accuracy, BBC Tells Its Reporters To Stop Giving Air Time To Climate Deniers

Got that? “To improve accuracy” – as if the BBC has ever given a rip about accuracy (or dissent, for that matter).

Headline from Salon:

BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal air time to climate deniers

Here are the headlines as they appeared on Memeorandum, just in case either site tries to change them:

dissent

How Salon celebrated, er, reported the news (bolded emphasis added by me):

Good news for viewers of BBC News: you’ll no longer be subjected to the unhinged ravings of climate deniers and other members of the anti-science fringe. In a report published Thursday by the BBC Trust, the network’s journalists were criticized for devoting too much air time (as in, any air time) to unqualified people with “marginal views” about non-contentious issues in a misguided attempt to provide editorial balance.

Think Progress gurgled:

When news outlets introduce false balance into its climate change stories, its audience then thinks those stories are less pressing than they actually are, a factor which contributes to uncertainty surrounding the issue and, ultimately, apathy. A 2009 study from the American Psychological Association confirmed this, noting that “perceived or real uncertainty” on climate change can lead to both “systematic underestimation of risk” and “sufficient reason to act in self interest over that of the environment.”

The far leftists at Hullabaloo cheered, “Kudos to the BBC for doing the right thing” while noting, “[o]ne of the hardest lessons journalism has had to learn over the last couple of decades is that sometimes truth doesn’t require balance.”  The Huffington Post, meanwhile, seemed hopeful this was a practice that would commence stateside – in short order.  The last sentence from their piece titled “The BBC Is Fighting Its Addiction To False Climate Change Balance“:

There was no word from American networks as to whether or not they were going to institute the same kinds of practices — though, given their recent output on climate change, it would be wise not to hold your breath.

And here you thought liberals were all about tolerance, and diversity, and freedom of thought and expression …

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel: Let’s videotape all gun sales in our city

Rahm Emanuel

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel

When the stench of fascism is in the air, you know Chicago mayor and former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel can’t be too far away:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel introduced a proposal Wednesday that would require all gun sales in the city to be videotaped, as part of a plan to allow gun stores back in Chicago under very tight restrictions.

The measure, which would also ban gun stores near schools and parks, was introduced Wednesday at a city council meeting without discussion. It was then referred to the council’s Public Safety Committee.

A vote on the proposal has not been scheduled.

The move comes in response to a January federal court ruling that deemed Chicago’s longtime ban on gun stores unconstitutional. The court gave the city six months to approve store restrictions while lifting the ban, setting a deadline of July 14 for the new plan.

The Democratic mayor’s plan, which is likely to be controversial, would aim to significantly limit any gun dealer who wishes to operate in the city. Emanuel’s proposal would also require a 72-hour waiting period for purchasing handguns and a 24-hour waiting period for rifles and shotguns.

Dealers would then be able to sell only one handgun per month, per buyer. Store records would also be subject to quarterly audits.

And here’s your quote of the day – on the same topic:

On Tuesday, Emanuel told a downtown hotel ballroom full of police officers that the new rules are “a smart, tough and enforceable way to prevent illegal guns in the city of Chicago.”

“Now that we’re required to allow gun sales within the city limits, we do it in a way that does not undermine our public safety goals,” said Emanuel, speaking at the police department’s annual awards ceremony.

How long has he been mayor of the murder capital of America again? “Safety goals” under the leadership of of Mayor Emanuel will likely always fall short because, like a typical elected liberal Democrat, he believes the “solution” to gun violence – which is the major driving force behind the crime problem in Chicago –  is to keep innocent, law-abiding people who simply want to protect themselves disarmed while the thugs who mean to do them harm obtain guns in whatever way they can – legal or not.

Infuriating.  But, sadly, the cycle continues.

QOTD: Andrew Sullivan on the “resignation” of @Mozilla CEO over gay marriage stance

Tolerance

Yep.

First, the back story:

Less than two weeks after drawing controversy over his appointment as CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, Brendan Eich has resigned from the position.

In a post at Mozilla’s official blog, executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker confirmed the news with an unequivocal apology on the company’s behalf. “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Baker wrote. “We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.”

The action comes days after dating site OKCupid became the most vocal opponent of Eich’s hiring. Mozilla offered repeated statements about LGBT inclusivity within the company over the past two weeks, but those never came with a specific response from Eich about his thousands of dollars of donations in support of Proposition 8, a California ballot measure that sought to ban gay marriage in the state.

The notice of resignation does not clarify Eich’s future with Mozilla, a company he cofounded in 1998 and became CTO of in 2005. It also stands in stark contrast to an interview Eich gave to The Guardian yesterday, in which he defended his personal, political actions and said they would not get in the way of his work as CEO. “I think I’m the best person for the job and I’m doing the job,” Eich said in the interview.

It’s not often – well, close to never – when I agree with Andrew Sullivan, but he pretty much nails it here (via):

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

Townhall’s Guy Benson rightly notes that the “live and let live” mantra the activist gay left repeated over and over again in appeals for the “right” to marry has now been replaced by “conform or else”:

Americans’ views on same-sex marriage have shifted dramatically in recent years, with solid majorities now approving of what supporters savvily branded “marriage equality.” The trend is even more pronounced among younger voters; a recent poll of young Republicans measured super-majority support for the practice. One of gay marriage proponents’ most effective and persuasive arguments appealed to many Americans’ “live and let live” sense of fair play. Hey, it’s a free country. The core idea was compelling: “Our love and our marriage doesn’t affect you.” They asked for tolerance, if not acceptance. And they won. Now we’re beginning to see what the disquieting “next step” looks like, at least as imagined by some of the loudest and most radical voices. Tolerance is no longer sufficient. Enforced celebration is the new standard. Those who resist will be labeled bigots, and may be subject to having their lives or livelihoods destroyed. We’re way past “live and let live.” We’ve moved on to coercion in the name of “tolerance.”

Give an inch, take a mile, etc.  This was completely predictable but, of course, the left never listens – and I’m not just talking about the gay left or, as Tammy Bruce calls them, the “Gay Gestapo.” This is what liberals want – no diversity of viewpoints unless it’s within the realm of what they, especially those in positions of power in government, find “acceptable.”  Anyone who denies the creepily fascistic motivations of these types of Democrats at this point is just a delusional ostrich.  Ignore at your own risk.  I won’t.

Quote of the Day: Jonah Goldberg on the left’s definition of “diversity”

Jonah Goldberg

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg.

It’s getting bad out there, folks:

Cancel the philosophy courses, people. Oh, and we’re going to be shuttering the political science, religion, and pre-law departments too. We’ll keep some of the English and history folks on for a while longer, but they should probably keep their résumés handy.

Because, you see, they are of no use anymore. We have the answers to the big questions, so why keep pretending there’s anything left to discuss?

At least that’s where Erin Ching, a student at Swarthmore College, seems to be coming down. Her school invited a famous left-wing Princeton professor, Cornel West, and a famous right-wing Princeton professor, Robert George, to have a debate. The two men are friends, and by all accounts they had an utterly civil exchange of ideas. But that only made the whole thing even more outrageous.

“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion,” Ching told the Daily Gazette, the school’s newspaper. “I don’t think we should be tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”

Swarthmore must be so proud.

Over at Harvard, another young lady has similar views. Harvard Crimson editorial writer Sandra Y. L. Korn recently called for getting rid of academic freedom in favor of something called “academic justice.”

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’?” Korn asks.

Goldberg goes on to add more examples of this fascistic train of thought, and finishes with this:

More pernicious, however, is that they believe the question of justice is a settled matter. We know what justice is, so why let serious people debate it anymore? The millennia-old dialogue between Aristotle, Plato, St. Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Rawls, Rorty, Hayek et al.? Shut it down, people. Or at least if the conversation heads in a direction where the Korns, Chings, and Streisands smell “oppression” — as defined solely by the Left — then it must not be “put up with.” Diversity demands that diversity of opinion not be tolerated anymore.

Indeed.

I’ve noted here and elsewhere numerous times (and have included examples) about how modern liberals are some of the most intolerant, closed-minded people you will ever come across – in spite of popular myth (as routinely and eagerly perpetuated by their allies in the mainstream press) to the contrary.   And as Goldberg pointed out, some of the worst of it comes from our institutions of “higher learning” – you know, the places you’re supposed to go to learn how to think outside of the box?  And once they graduate, they move on to bigger and better attempts at shutting down debate by declaring any attempts you make at preserving your right to speak out, think differently,observe your religious beliefs, and hold on to more of the money you earn as the equivalent to “racism, homophobia, sexism”, etc – as we’re seeing play out in states like Kansas and right here in NC.

In a nutshell: “diversity” to the left is not diversity at all. Was having a bit of a discussion with a friend here in NC about this, and her comment to me was that unfortunately this type of thing will never change – and in fact appears to be getting worse, but as I told her, that doesn’t mean we should ever stop raising hell about it.  You know what they say about sunlight …

King, er, President Obama to raise fed worker min. wage to $10.10/hour

King Obama

Image via Salon.com

Fox News reports this morning that, in a move that should surprise no one, our celebrity President plans on circumventing Congress with the wave of his pen in order to give federal workers under new federal contracts a minimum wage hike:

President Obama, in the first of potentially many executive actions tied to his State of the Union address, will unilaterally increase the minimum wage for workers under new federal contracts to $10.10 an hour, from $7.25, in an effort to build momentum for a minimum wage hike for all Americans.

The executive order, which has been championed by progressive Democratic lawmakers, applies to all contractors performing services for the federal government and would effect more than 2 million employees, according to an administration official.

The president will use Tuesday night’s address to press Congress to pass a Democratic plan to increase the federal wage to $10.10 over three years, then indexing it to inflation, while also raising the minimum wage for tipped workers, the official said.

The president, who does not have the power to unilaterally raise the minimum wage for private sector workers, used last year’s State of the Union speech to call for a federal minimum wage hike.

“Let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour,” the president said to applause in his 2013 address.

[…]

Obama, in an effort to avoid the appearance of being a lame duck president, is expected to use Tuesday’s State of the Union address to make clear his intentions to use his executive powers to achieve his goals when Congress fails to pass legislation.

You know what? It’s one thing to be in the final weeks of your Presidency and make “unilateral” moves around Congress on any number of issues. It’s questionable but Presidents in the past – including President Bush – did it. In this case, President Obama has a full two three years left to go in his remaining term, and he’s already working to go around Congress every chance he gets – and on critical issues and decisions that, once implemented, will be hard to undo by future Presidents. This isn’t leadership – this is fascism and a monarchy rolled into one. I thought we fought a long time ago to get away from this exact type of dangerous rule. Would someone alert Dear Leader?

Obama White House: Congress? We don’t need no stinkin’ Congress

King Obama

Image via Salon.com

Is ObamaCo starting to take Rep. Charlie Rangel’s advice? The AP reports that the White House has “warned” Obama will go around Congress to get what he wants done whenever he can (hat tip):

President Barack Obama will work with Congress where he can and circumvent lawmakers where he must, his top advisers warned Sunday in previewing Tuesday’s State of the Union speech.

Obama faces a politically divided Congress on Tuesday and will use his annual address to demand expanded economic opportunity. Absent legislative action, the White House is telling lawmakers that the president is ready to take unilateral action to close the gap between rich and poor Americans.

“I think the way we have to think about this year is we have a divided government,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a longtime Obama adviser. “The Republican Congress is not going to rubber-stamp the president’s agenda. The president is not going to sign the Republican Congress’ agenda.”

So the White House is eyeing compromise on some priorities, Obama advisers said. But the president is also looking at executive orders that can be enacted without Congress’ approval.

“The president sees this as a year of action to work with Congress where he can and to bypass Congress where necessary,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

[…]

The White House has been signaling to Republicans that it would not wait for Congress to act. It also is betting Obama’s backers will rally behind his plans.

“When American jobs and livelihoods depend on getting something done, he will not wait for Congress,” Pfeiffer wrote in an email to Obama supporters Saturday.

And how fascistic/monarchistic does it sound that they think their ‘solutions’ are the only answer, and will ‘guarantee’ things will get better in America economically and – because of that – they’ll just circumvent  the “impediment” that they view Congress as wherever they see fit in order to implement those “solutions”?

Let’s pretend for five seconds had President Bush even seriously hinted at doing something like this, especially over a sustained period of time – imagine the outrage both from the Usual Suspects on the left both in Congress and in the media.  You know who’d be the loudest protesting? Then-Senator Barack Obama, who as a Senator frequently complained about what he perceived as “executive branch overreach.”

That was then. This is now.

“Change” you can believe in!

#Obamacare: Smug liberal explains why those who lose their plans must sacrifice

Spread the wealth

”… I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” – BO, 10-12-08

I’ve seen a lot of “shut up and like it!” diatribes from liberals over this last few weeks, but this one takes the cake. Far leftist Paul Waldman at the reliably liberal American Prospect writes (bolded emphasis added by me):

Apparently, there was a meeting of the editors at The New York Times op-ed page in which someone said, “You know how every time someone does a story about one of these Obamacare ‘victims’ whose insurance companies are cancelling their plans, it turns out they could do really well on the exchange, but no one bothers to check? We should get one of them to write an op-ed, but not bother to ask what options they’ll have.” And then someone else responded, “Right, don’t bother with the fact-checking. But we need a new twist. What if we find someone who’ll complain that the problem with Obamacare is that other people care too much about poor people and the uninsured, while what they ought to be doing is spending more time liking her Facebook post about her possibly increased premiums?” The editors looked at each other and said, “That’s gold. Gold!”

And this was the result. Written by Lori Gottlieb, a Los Angeles psychotherapist and author, it relates how she got a cancellation letter from Anthem Blue Cross and was offered a plan for $5,400 more a year, then had a frustrating phone call with the company. Did she go to the California health exchange and find out what sorts of deals would be available to her? Apparently not. She took Anthem at their word—you can always trust insurance companies, after all!—then took to Facebook, where she “vented about the call and wrote that the president should be protecting the middle class, not making our lives substantially harder.”

And here’s where our story takes a shocking turn. Instead of expressing what she felt was the appropriate sympathy, those 1,037 people on Facebook she thought were her friends but turned out just to be “friends” had the nerve to point out that the Affordable Care Act will help millions of previously uninsured and uninsurable people get coverage. Gottlieb was disgusted with these people she termed the “smug insureds.” And none of them even “liked” her post!

[…]

How terribly smug, to think that the fate of millions of poor people who will now get insurance is as important as the suffering of this one person who might have to pay more for comprehensive coverage, and also happens to have access to The New York Times where she can air her grievances! If only it weren’t so “trendy to cheer for the underdog.”

Got that? It doesn’t matter that you liked your plan. It doesn’t matter that it was one you could afford. It doesn’t matter that you wanted to keep your same physician, same coverage.  Doesn’t matter that Obama lied. You are “one person” and your wants and needs are not as “important” as the “needs” of the many, even though many of “the many” haven’t signed up yet, even though many of the “many” are opting for MEDICAID instead of another coverage option.  YOU MUST SACRIFICE FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

Ann Althouse explains:

Gottlieb got seriously burned, but had she really never noticed this form of liberal disciplining before? It’s funny to act surprised that these people are suddenly “such humanitarians,” but she’s experiencing heightened awareness because $5,400 is so specific and real, and she, in her personal anger, made the mistake of thinking her “friends” (Facebook friends) were people of empathy toward individual others. But sober observation should have taught her that left-liberals expect individual self-sacrifice for the good of the group.

Oh, yes, liberals looove sacrifice as long as they aren’t the ones having to do it.  And they’re quite ok with theft, too, as long as it’s done by Uncle Sam.

Spread the wealth! It’s patriotic, didn’t ya know? :-w

(Via Memeorandum)

Fascist NYT editorial board: #ObamaMisspoke on #Obamacare – but your old plan sucked anyway

Failure to communicate

”What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.” – Captain, Florida Road Prison 36, from the movie ‘Cool Hand Luke’

(Monday AM Update: The thread title has been changed to something even more fitting of what the NYT editorial board wrote. :)  –ST )

Unsurprisingly, the editorial page at the New York Times has lined up with other far left fascists when it comes to who makes decisions on the type of healthcare insurance plan you can have (via Memeorandum). In an editorial titled “Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping”, the board lectures (bolded emphasis added by me):

Congressional Republicans have stoked consumer fears and confusion with charges that the health care reform law is causing insurers to cancel existing policies and will force many people to pay substantially higher premiums next year for coverage they don’t want. That, they say, violates President Obama’s pledge that if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it.

Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that. By law, insurers cannot continue to sell policies that don’t provide the minimum benefits and consumer protections required as of next year. So they’ve sent cancellation notices to hundreds of thousands of people who hold these substandard policies. (At issue here are not the 149 million people covered by employer plans, but the 10 million to 12 million people who buy policies directly on the individual market.)

But insurers are not allowed to abandon enrollees. They must offer consumers options that do comply with the law, and they are scrambling to retain as many of their customers as possible with new policies that are almost certain to be more comprehensive than their old ones.

Indeed, in all the furor, people forget how terrible many of the soon-to-be-abandoned policies were. Some had deductibles as high as $10,000 or $25,000 and required large co-pays after that, and some didn’t cover hospital care.

This overblown controversy has also obscured the crux of what health care reform is trying to do, which is to guarantee that everyone can buy insurance without being turned away or charged exorbitant rates for pre-existing conditions and that everyone can receive benefits that really protect them against financial or medical disaster, not illusory benefits that prove inadequate when a crisis strikes.

Got that, rubes?  It’s Republicans who have “stoked confusion” over a law that the President merely “misspoke” about when he told the American people they wouldn’t – couldn’t – be kicked off their existing plans once Obamacare fully took effect. To the slobbering lapdogs at the NYT editorial board who have rolled over for Obama from day one, this can be sweetly and conveniently spun as “misspeaking”, but to the millions of citizens of this country receiving letters in the mail that their coverage has been cancelled, alerting them that they’ll need to pony up a lot more cash (that they don’t have) in order to afford something comparable for them and/or for their families, some who are right in the middle of a healthcare issue who are now extremely concerned that they may not be able to keep their primary care physician – another “misspeak” by Obama –  this is called exactly what it is: A BALD-FACED LIE.

But worry not, dolts, this is for your own good- and for the good of ALL OF MANKIND:

Starting next year, all plans sold in this country will be required to provide 10 essential benefits, including some, like mental health and substance abuse treatment and maternity and newborn care, that are not now part of many policies. And premiums may well rise, in part because insurance companies must accept all applicants, not just the healthy.

Premiums are apt to come down for older patients and sicker patients with chronic illnesses. Premiums will likely go up for younger, healthier patients. Even so, analysts at the Kaiser Family Foundation believe that most people will actually pay less next year, because those with modest incomes will qualify for federal subsidies and many poor, uninsured people will be eligible for Medicaid.

As I wrote Friday in response to TPM’s absurd piece essentially stating the same thing:

Got it? Even if that 3% number [of people ‘actually’ impacted]  is correct (and I’d bet $100 it’s not), those people don’t matter, are insignificant in the scheme of things. After all, sacrifices have to be made for the “common good”, right?  Just like those people who have lost jobs, or have seen their hours reduced, their full time status reduced to part time, and/or pay cut as a result of companies having to make cost adjustments due to the regulations under Obamacare.  They don’t count. As to the rest, well, there will be a  ”net benefit” to Obamacare, you see, because even though they are losing their current plan thanks to Democrats who voted against a GOP resolution in 2010 that would have prevented that from happening, they’ll have “better” options under a “new” plan … except the dum dums at TPM and other liberal outlets parroting this tripe don’t get that for many, comparable plans are too expensive for them and they will  NOT qualify for a subsidy.

… and nor would they qualify for Medicaid. But again, these people don’t matter, right?

Surprisingly enough, though the reliably left wing parrots at the NYT predictably take Obama’s side on this issue, the equally and usually reliable Obama supporters and proponents of Obamacare at the Charlotte Observer do not.  Observer associate editor Peter St. Onge wrote at the paper yesterday:

It’s becoming harder to believe [a lie] didn’t happen with this president and his health care law. We all know the quote by now. In 2009, as the Affordable Care Act was being written, Obama told the American Medical Association: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.” A year later, he reiterated: “If you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you.”

But that wasn’t true. And he knew it. So did a handful of Republicans and journalists who said then that the president couldn’t possibly keep his promise. The Affordable Care Act did allow for some insurance plans to be grandfathered, but the law also required that medical coverage be more robust than the plans many people held. Cancellations were inevitable. Millions of them.

But Obama didn’t equivocate. He didn’t say, “Well, I’m not talking about all Americans…”

“Period,” he said.

Now the inevitable has arrived. Americans with individual insurance policies are getting cancellations in the mail. The media are widely reporting what too few did four years ago. Republicans are pouncing with Joe Wilson-like fury.

And now, the president and his supporters are trying to deflect the hard truth with soft logic:

“Those Americans had substandard plans…”

Doesn’t matter.

“Most will be able to get subsidies for their new, improved plans…”

Also doesn’t matter.

“The cancellations affect only a small number of people…”

Maybe so (or maybe not, according to some estimates). But that doesn’t absolve the deception.

[…]

Obama, not surprisingly, doubled down last week, blaming the media for “misleading” people by not reporting on the better deal many Americans are getting. Did you expect, “Sorry about that, but I had to fib”?

That’s the calculation the president faced four years ago when deciding what we should know. Should he jeopardize a worthy law – which it is, by the way – by acknowledging its shortcomings up front? Or should he risk a political hit after Obamacare is the law of the land?

But in choosing the latter, he forgot a more basic truth: It should have been our decision, not his.

Welcome to the club, Charlotte Observer.   This doesn’t absolve you from your years of covering for Dear Leader on Obamacare, your years of accusing Republicans and conservatives of “racism” and opposing the President for the sake of opposing him, but we’ll take your veiled mea culpa here – and remind you of it often.

Naked Fascism: The real story behind the liberal “defenses” of #Obamacare

Useful idiot.

Words of wisdom.

Since I wrote my piece detailing how “progressive activist” and Obama tool Sally Kohn lectured millions of Americans who have lost their health insurance plans as a result of Obamacare that it was a “good thing” that was happening, I’ve noticed a similar theme/excuse-making from other liberals on the same issue.   As a refresher, here’s a snippet from Kohn’s piece (bolded emphasis added by me):

(CNN) – Conservatives are expressing shock and outrage that the Obama administration knew that many people in the individual insurance market would not be able to keep their plans once the Affordable Care Act took effect. Such shock is not surprising; overblown outrage is the stock and trade of conservative politics these days.

But here’s what conservatives won’t tell you, lest it undermine their theatrics: Many insurance plans are shutting down because they don’t meet the higher bar of quality benefits required under Obamacare, and of those people who lose access to their plans, many will pay less and all will have better and more comprehensive options.

Also, with a few exceptions, no one is really noting that this point isn’t quite news. In 2010, the fact that certain insurance plans would not be grandfathered into Obamacare because of their inadequate coverage was widely covered by the press. It was a given, after all that, if standards for health insurance were going to be raised in America — a good thing — then some plans that don’t meet the bar would no longer be available. One could blame this on the Affordable Care Act, or alternatively, one could blame this on insurance companies for providing such substandard care in the first place.

Here’s what this boils down to:

Will some people lose their current insurance? Yes.

Will these same folks lose health insurance coverage? No.

They will all have access to better plans and in many cases pay less because of expanded options and tax credits.

Kohn is basically saying, “Yeah, so you’re losing your insurance plan (that you may have liked) but the new one will be a ‘better’ (even if more expensive and out of your price range) because that’s how President Obama wanted it to be. So just deal with it, stupid, and you might see the benefits of it eventually.”  She’s not the only one.  Dylan Scott at Talking Points Memo wrote this ode to fascism today:

What Really Happens To People Whose Insurance Is ‘Canceled’ Because Of Obamacare

[…]

What really matters is what happens to the people who are receiving those cancelation letters that congressional Republicans have been parading in front of the cameras?

The bottom line: Almost all of them are going to receive the same or much better coverage, and many of them are going to receive financial help to purchase it.

First, let’s put the issue in perspective. As Jonathan Gruber, the MIT professor who oversaw Massachusetts health reform and is therefore as close as we have to a true veteran of a dramatic insurance overhaul, told the New Yorker, it’s only a small percentage (3 percent, to be precise) of Americans who you can really argue might at least potentially get screwed.

About 80 percent of people, those who receive insurance through their employer or are already enrolled in a government program, won’t experience any change at all, Gruber said. (The Kaiser Family Foundation puts the number at 79 percent).

Another 14 percent are currently uninsured people who will now be able to get covered because of the Affordable Care Act, Gruber said. (Kaiser pegs it at 16 percent uninsured). How many of those actually get covered depends on a few variables — like whether Republicans states come around and expand Medicaid — but that’s the share that stands to gain.

So then you have 6 percent who might receive a cancelation [sp] letter (Kaiser says the individual market is 5 percent). Of those, Gruber argued, about half aren’t really going to see a change: They’ll technically enroll in a new plan, but it’ll be very similar to what they already had.

That leaves 3 percent who will have to buy significantly different plans, some of whom might have to pay more for them (at least before the law’s tax credits and other financial assistance kick in).

[…]

To be clear, nobody has done an analysis yet of what people who have received a cancelation notice are going to pay for coverage under the ACA. There’s just no way to do that. But we can take a pretty educated guess by looking at the breakdown of the health insurance market provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

People making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level qualify for either tax credits or expanded Medicaid (which, to be clear, has to cover the same set of 10 benefits that private plans have to cover). According to Kaiser, about 60 percent people in the individual insurance market (more than 10 million) have an income within that range, which leaves the other 40 percent (about 4.4 million) who don’t and won’t qualify for help.

So mash this all up — it’s an imperfect science — and Gruber’s prediction that about 3 percent of Americans are actually at risk of ‘losing’ under Obamacare holds up pretty well.

“We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he told the New Yorker. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Got it? Even if that 3% number is correct (and I’d bet $100 it’s not), those people don’t matter, are insignificant in the scheme of things. After all, sacrifices have to be made for the “common good”, right?  Just like those people who have lost jobs, or have seen their hours reduced, their full time status reduced to part time, and/or pay cut as a result of companies having to make cost adjustments due to the regulations under Obamacare.  They don’t count. As to the rest, well, there will be a  “net benefit” to Obamacare, you see, because even though they are losing their current plan thanks to Democrats who voted against a GOP resolution in 2010 that would have prevented that from happening, they’ll have “better” options under a “new” plan … except the dum dums at TPM and other liberal outlets parroting this tripe don’t get that for many, comparable plans are too expensive for them and they will  NOT qualify for a subsidy.

The “defenses” from liberals over the fresh media reports about how many people are losing their current insurance coverage over Obamacare  are getting more pathetic by the minute,  including another emerging tactic: trying to “debunk” Obamacare horror stories:

Since insurers have begun informing beneficiaries that their health care plans do not meet the new federal requirements of Obamacare, and will be either cancelled or significantly altered, the media has profiled countless middle class Americans who claim that the new health care law will force them to pay more for coverage.

Deborah Cavallaro, for instance, a real estate agent from Los Angeles, was enrolled in an individual plan that cost her just $293 per month. Under Obamacare, Cavallaro says she’ll have to pay over $400 for coverage she doesn’t need or want. But a higher premium doesn’t tell the whole story: while Cavallaro may spend more each month, she’ll be buying more comprehensive insurance with fewer out-of-pocket costs, better benefits that will cover more and cost her less if she actually falls ill, and much more robust consumer protections.

Assuming all of the above written by Think Progress is true (it probably isn’t), just shut up, Ms. Cavallaro, and accept that this “change” in your insurance policy “is for your own good.” Umkay?

Merriam-Webster defines fascism in the following fashion:

: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

[…]

1: often capitalized :  a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2:  a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

Some liberals try to distance themselves from the word fascist by falsely asserting that fascism is primarily a “right wing” thing.  Clueless wonders. As a Twitter friend notes:

 

 

 

Explaining fascism to people who don’t follow politics much is sometimes tricky and difficult. In the case of Obamacare, the arguments against centralized government making your decisions for you pretty much write themselves. End of story. It’s time for people to wake-up. Today.

Fascist Democrats declare war on opposition to Obama, call GOP “terrorists”

Just a quick scan of headlines:

Time Magazine – Obama Senior Adviser [Dan Pfeiffer] Compares Republicans To Terrorists:

In the latest escalation in the Obama administration’s war of words with congressional Republicans, White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer compared the GOP to terrorists in an interview on CNN Thursday. ”We are for cutting spending. We are for reforming out tax codes, reforming out entitlements,” Pfeiffer told Jake Tapper. “What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest. We’re not going to do that.”

Politico – Al Gore: Government shutdown ‘political terrorism’

Former Vice President Al Gore took Republicans to task Friday for risking a government shutdown, calling it “political terrorism.”

“I think the only phrase that describes it is political terrorism. ‘Nice global economy you got there, be a shame if we had to destroy it. We have a list of demands. If you don’t meet them all by our deadline, we’ll blow up the global economy,’” Gore said Friday at the Brookings Institution.

Gore had a question for those engaging in the “despicable and dishonorable threat” to shut down government over Obamacare.

“How dare you?”

The Hill – Harkin: Tea Party ‘every bit’ as dangerous to nation as the Civil War:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) on Friday said that the Tea Party movement is just as dangerous for America as the Civil War.

“A small group of willful men and women who have a certain ideology about how our country should run and what we should do cannot get their way in a normal discourse and votes,” Harkin said. “Since they can’t get their way, they’re going to create this confusion and discourse and hope the public is so mixed up in who to blame for this that perhaps they’ll blame both sides.”

“That is the path they see for taking over the government. It’s dangerous, very dangerous. … Every bit as dangerous as the break up and the Civil War.”

And the Democrat/MSM theme of the day from Obama allies like former senior adviser Bill Burton:

Because we should trust a Holocaust-denying thug more than the political opposition here at home, right?

It’s amazing how little it takes for Useful Idiots like Bill Burton to believe dangerous “world leaders” who magically all of a sudden have the world’s best interests at heart. We’ve been down this road before, haven’t we? When will these dum dums ever learn?

In the meantime, for opposing Obamacare, and for NOT believing – based on what decades of history tells us – that Iran’s newest “leader” is sincere in his attempts to “build a bridge” with the US, we’re the terrorists.

Disturbing. I remember once when Democrats thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism …

Dissent is patriotic

Once upon a time …