Why Some People Don't Deserve A Dog

I ran across this article the other day. My husband and I did the unthinkable: We returned our 5-month-old puppy to her breeder despite the fact that our family loved her and thought she was adorable. I work from home most days and thought that would make housetraining easier, but I soon realized it made it harder because there was no set schedule or routine for Eevee. Some days she wouldn’t go in the crate at all. Other days she would be in the crate for three to four hours. At a six-week training course, we were told to put Eevee in the crate several hours a day even when I was home. I would lure her into the crate with treats and pretend to go out, but Eevee was smart enough to sense I was still home. She would bark and whine until I let her out again. I soon realized that Eevee wasn’t Lambic, and much like children, no two dogs are alike. Plus, my husband and I were used to an older dog that knew our family’s patterns and rhythms and didn’t need the constant attention and discipline of a 2-year-old child.The hardest part about the entire situation was telling our daughter. She had promised to help take care of Eevee, and for the most part, she did. But as much as she was willing to walk the puppy and play with her, it wasn’t enough, and it didn’t ease our stress. People like this sadden me. The whole point of having a dog is that dogs are companion animals. Most of them thrive on human contact and love. If you get a good dog and treat it well you will have a friend for life, tragically short as its life will be compared to yours. A dog is not a toy to be put away in the closet or discarded when you lose interest in it. These people should be well known by every breeder and animal shelter out there so that no one ever again makes the mistake of sending another dog home with them. It is true that sharing your space with a puppy who will eventually turn into a dog can be challenging. 

Many dogs shed or smell bad. They lack table manners. They may act up around strangers. They have to go to the bathroom constantly, and do not care where they relieve themselves. Depending on what's going on they may continually bark or whine. Heck, even if nothing is going on they may continually bark or whine. It is expensive and time consuming to ensure they have proper medical care, shelter, food, entertainment, and dental care. But if you're an adult you know all this already. It's up to you to train your dog so that its behavior falls into socially acceptable patterns. A dog is a dog. It is not and never will be a furry little human. Expecting that is stupid. But if you're willing to put in work, as obviously these yahoos were not, then in most instances you can have a rewarding and fun relationship with a very social animal who by nature tends to be willing to please. Getting a dog is a big decision and not one which should be lightly taken. Selfish lazy people should never have dogs. Hopefully the dog is not too damaged from the mistreatment it received and can find a new home with people who actually know what to expect from our canine friends. After all, the dog didn't ask to be there. Generally speaking, a dog is just a mirror to what sort of person you really are. And if you are the sort of person who can't handle the "horrible stress" of having a puppy act like a puppy do yourself and your potential puppy a huge favor and get a less stressful and more affectionate and expressive animal like a goldfish. But be careful. You do have to change the goldfish's water from time to time.
Story Link

Donald Trump: Racist White Man's Badass Revenge

Donald Trump is the walking unalloyed id of fearful white reactionaries. He says what a lot of people are thinking (if you believe that various online comments are a window into some people's souls) but until recently have not said out loud in mixed company. Trump opened his presidential campaign with slurs against Mexicans and Hispanics. He has continued it with broadsides against and snide comments about Blacks, the media, disabled people, President Obama, Jews, women he finds uppity, and of late, Muslims. It is arguable as to whether Trump truly believes all that he says. Much of what he says is demonstrably untrue. There were not thousands, hundreds or even dozens of American Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the 9-11 attacks. Black people do not commit 81% of murders. And so on. And it would be neither wise nor constitutional, as Trump suggests, to employ religious tests for immigration to and ultimately citizenship in the United States. The US military and law enforcement agencies should not and must not, as Trump has suggested, go after the families of suspected or convicted terrorists. And Muslims should not be forced to have special IDs or sign up for a database. Trump thinks that the United States should use a religious test for entry into this country. And the test would be simple. If you are a Muslim, you don't get to enter. How he would square that with the Constitution is anybody's guess. Obviously, for quite a lot of people, apparently most especially Trump, the election of a black man to the highest office in the land was a severe shock from which they've never truly recovered. As a result some folks think if that Barack Hussein Obama can do it, I KNOW I could. It's one thing to think that the President is incorrect on this or that issue or even incompetent. That comes with the job. But when you, as at least some Republicans do, view the election of a black man as prima facie evidence that something has gone very badly wrong in the system then you're playing with some very dangerous forces.

For some people, the fact that the President is black, regardless of how much of a centrist/Eisenhower Republican Obama can be, means that America is in decline and must be restored. Those are the people to whom Trump speaks. I don't think that Trump is a stupid man by any means. However I don't believe he's as smart as he would have us conclude. 

It is darkly humorous and quite revealing that Trump supporters, some of whom froth at the mouth over President Obama's executive orders and aggressive bureaucracies, cheer at Trump's "Me, me,me, I, I, I" rhetoric and promises to make changes that simply can't be made without the agreement of Congress, the courts, and occasionally other countries. But when Trump defends his idea by saying well it's not as bad as FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans then as I wrote, you're dealing with someone who is downright dangerous. It has become popular in some circles for people to claim that they would rather have their racism and bigotry upfront and honest, rather than hidden behind politesse and smarmy denials. Well those people will have their claims put to the test should Trump ever become President. Trump is in full "attack the other" mode. And for him the other is anyone who is not Caucasian and Christian. Many people find the whiff of fascism, racism and sexism in anyone who's to the right of Noam Chomsky and more masculine than pajama boy. Those folks can usually be dismissed. But this time they are dead on accurate. Trump may or may not become the Republican nominee for President. But if he does then the American voter will have a quite clear choice to make. I can understand why people who didn't care for George Bush's cowboy certainty were initially attracted to Obama's cool as a cucumber persona. And I can understand why some of those people, now frustrated with what they view as Obama's confusing lack of passion, are excited by Trump's bombast. But blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few makes no sense. That's not how America is supposed to work. I think that most Americans still get this. But quite a few Republicans do not. For them the descriptor  "American" simply can't be easily fit onto anyone who isn't a White Christian. That is why so many of them still believe that the President is neither American born nor Christian. These people aren't going anywhere for a while. And they vote. Buckle your seats because this election cycle just became a lot more interesting and vital. I wonder if the Christian right-wingers who mutter about exercising their Second Amendment options accept that Muslim-Americans, facing talk of id cards, immigration restrictions, calls to "go after" family members of suspects, and internment camps, might themselves decide to get better armed...just in case.

Book Reviews: The Bazaar of Bad Dreams

The Bazaar of Bad Dreams
By Stephen King

I am always fascinated by artists or other performers who are at the top of their game. Whether it's watching Rahsaan Roland Kirk playing three saxophones at once, Stephen Curry making other professional basketball players look silly or Bruce Lee demonstrating his one inch knockout punch it's a beautiful thing to experience. We only see the finished product but don't see all the hard work it took to get there. Stephen King is one of America's, maybe the world's greatest writers. And he's still got it. This is a collection of short stories which were all new to me though several of them were previously published in slightly different forms in such magazines as Playboy, Esquire, The New Yorker or The Atlantic. So if you're an King collector/fanatic you may already be familiar with some of these tales. But as King says as far as he is concerned no story is every really done until the writer is dead. King says one question that people always ask him is where he gets his ideas. King states that the question is essentially unanswerable. Nevertheless he gives an introduction to each story which provides the reader an entry into his state of mind at the time of the story's creation. He even occasionally explains exactly where and how he thinks the story germinated. So there's that gift for those of us who want to know how the magic works. King also announces that he does not do confessional fiction but then declares that obviously as he ages ideas about what happens next and what do we leave behind start to come more and more to the forefront. And his near death experience after being hit by an inattentive driver has seemingly become something which well, haunts his writing, might be too strong of a phrase but informs his work, would not be. So like everyone else King is a man of paradoxes and contradictions. Go figure. Although King is known as a horror writer, that's not necessarily a title he seeks out. He tells the story of being sent to the grocery store by his wife and being accosted by a woman who chides him for writing all those scary supernatural stories. She wants to know why can't he write a nice uplifting story like "Shawshank Redemption". King replies that actually he wrote that story. The woman responds "No you didn't". And King can't convince her otherwise. Perhaps this collection can be of interest to people who think that King can only write supernatural or downbeat stories. Even where there is a supernatural element it is extremely well integrated with the rest of the story. I think that about half of the stories in this book do not have any supernatural components. You will have to decide for yourself if they are uplifting or not.

King has always impressed me most with his ability to create firmly believable characters. This talent is most easily seen in his novels of course but it's even more on display in his short stories here. In a very small number of pages King can build fictional people who just reek of verisimilitude while other authors can take damn near the entire book to create flat and lifeless characters. With most of the stories here I didn't feel as if I was reading them so much as if I was transferred into that reality. There was very little skimming occurring while reading this collection. That's usually a benefit of a short story collection though. If something doesn't really make your skirt fly up there's a new story arriving in just a few pages. I liked most of these stories. King includes some of his poetry. But I'm not a huge poetry fan so I couldn't really get into that. If you're looking for what you think of as the "typical" King story, the author has got you covered with "Mile 81" which introduces some good Samaritans, some frightened kids and a car that is more than meets the eye. "Dune" could be the best story of the book as it saves the shock for the final sentence. Then again "Herman Wouk is still alive" could also challenge for the best story of the collection. Two impoverished women, best friends since high school, go on a road trip while at the same time two old poets go on a picnic. King strongly believes that a writer should be able to write from any point of view. He puts this belief to the test in "Mister Yummy" in which an elderly gay man tells of strange things he's seeing in a retirement home. "Blockade Billy" is a rollicking story set in the classic 50s-60s baseball era. A strange catcher comes out of nowhere to invigorate a team. "Morality" examines how a married couple in dire financial straits responds to a proposal (and no it's not that kind of proposal) from the wife's employer, a wealthy older man. In "Drunken Fireworks", a Maine rivalry between a wealthy Italian-American vacationing family and a drunk man and his obese alcoholic mother slowly gets out of hand. In "Under the Weather" King examines the ability of the human mind to deny reality. As the story is told from the pov of the person who's an unreliable narrator there are a few juicy surprises in store for the reader. "Ur" uses a typo made while ordering online to explore love, fate and the question of multiple universes. There are other good stories here which I won't describe. Basically if you're a King fan you should buy this book. And if you're new to King you should buy this book. I read most of it while spending too much time at an auto dealership waiting on repairs. The repairs took twice as long as they should have but I wasn't that upset because I had this book to read.

Movie Reviews: No Escape

No Escape
directed by The Dowdle Brothers (John Erick and Drew)

This was an exciting and well directed movie with only a few events that didn't make sense. Ok maybe it had more than a few things that didn't make sense. But it was still a thrill ride albeit perhaps a subtly manipulative one. There are some deeper questions about planetary fairness and corporate neo-colonialism that the film clumsily shoehorns into the narrative as a vaccine against charges of bigotry. These questions are still worth thinking about. For example, you may well believe that it's wrong that half the world's population lives on less than $3/day, doesn't have access to clean drinking water or toilet facilities, or has to deal with diseases and conditions long since eradicated in the West. You may blame Western imperialism, colonialism and racism for this state of affairs. Perhaps you sympathize somewhat with Third World socialist or nationalist movements or parties who seek to alter this state of affairs. Perhaps. However if someone who has suffered thru these repressive living conditions decides that they are entitled to beat, rob, rape or murder you in order to exorcise their bad feelings and settle the score, I'm betting any sympathy you had for their plight vanishes. So there's that. Brothers John Erick Dowdle and Drew Dowdle, who also wrote and directed As Above, So Below and Quarantine, directed this movie. No Escape had a horror movie sensibility to it but then again the worst horrors are other people. One can argue about whether some of the behaviors depicted in this film would really happen but there's thousands of years of history to show that they would. If enough people get the idea that they can let their worst instincts run loose with no repercussions, well you get things like the Opelousas Massascre, Kristallnacht, St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre and so on.
It is really important to re-emphasize how well this film is edited and put together. You feel as if you are actually there. This is the sort of movie which may have you yelling at the screen. The camera work moves smoothly back and forth between close handheld views and more panoramic vistas.

Do you remember the ending of The Sopranos? Do you remember how the director skillfully made you think that something drastic was about to happen? Well maybe that drastic thing happened and maybe it didn't but this movie opens up with the same sort of palpable tension. In an unnamed SouthEast Asian country the prime minister, surrounded by bodyguards and soldiers, meets with a Western (American?) diplomat or businessman. Something is subtly off. The prime minister has a food taster who doubles as his top bodyguard.  Are the drinks poisoned? Is there a bomb hidden somewhere? Is the Westerner an assassin? Well the Westerner leaves but then things jump off. 17 hours before this, the genially clueless Texan civil engineer Jack Dwyer (Owen Wilson), his quite curvy but somewhat hard looking wife Annie (Lake Bell) and their two pre-teen daughters are flying to this country to start over. Jack's previous employer has declared bankruptcy. This new assignment is his last chance to stay in his chosen career. Jack will be overseeing water treatment and delivery projects. On the plane the family makes an acquaintance of the suave Britisher Hammond (Pierce Brosnan). Arriving at their hotel the family is nonplussed to learn that the amenities aren't exactly up to First World standards. Annie and the kids didn't want to leave home to travel halfway around the world. Jack can't believe that the hotel clerk has no messages for him. He can't even find a current English language newspaper for goodness sakes! After again encountering Hammond, who is raring to go sample the nightlife, Jack decides to stay in for the night. He tries, albeit ineptly, to comfort Annie, who's sobbing in the bathroom about well, everything. So it goes. Marriage is for better or worse. It's right there in the vows.

The next morning, Jack sets out on a journey to find a newspaper. But Jack is a rather unlucky fellow. Returning to the hotel he witnesses the start of a bloody confrontation between the police and rioters. The rioters get the upper hand. And in front of the hotel Jack sees rioters executing tourists. Well that will just ruin your day won't it. Jack must find his wife and daughters and leave. But leave for where exactly? Jack and his brood can't exactly blend into the local populace. Additionally, they neither speak the language nor understand the culture. And Jack isn't some secret Billy Bada$$ who will suddenly reveal a very particular set of skills. But all the same needs must. When the lives of your loved ones are at stake, you may find yourself doing things you never thought you could. In many aspects this is basically a live action zombie movie. As mentioned there are a few nods here and there to the humanity of the people of this country but that's really not what the film is interested in showing.  Jack and family are outnumbered and surrounded. They do get help from some unexpected quarters but ultimately they're on their own. This movie was very fast paced at about 103 minutes. You can't wait to see what happens next. The film goes from strength to strength visually. The writing is not the film's best feature but again, it's showing clueless Americans caught up in a coup and trying to escape. If you can't identify with that, this is not the film for you. 
TRAILER

Game of Thrones Season Six Trailer Tease

Well there's not much here nothing new here of course but then again it is a tease. In fact this is less of a tease and more of a reminder how just how much the Starks have been screwed over. There are plenty of hints in book and show that Bran has a big part to play in whatever the end game is going to be. But who knows if that part will be for good or bad. Bran may well end up transcending such petty concerns as Stark revenge or other political concerns. For all we know Bran could wind up making people ask why didn't someone take him out when he was young. We shall see. Most of the big narrative events in the published books have already been depicted in the show. I am looking forward to the new season, upset that there is not yet a new book to read, and disappointed that the final conclusion to the story will be revealed on television before print.

Hannah Duston: Heroine?

The other day I was reading thru the latest Quarterly Journal of Military History. I'm not sure I saw enough to justify the $13 purchase price but I did read about the story of Hannah Duston. I hadn't known about this story before. I thought it interesting and relevant to today's world. As you know the French and English colonized much of North America. They brought over their national, political and religious rivalries. These conflicts routinely erupted into war. In 1687 during the war that was alternately known as King William's War or the Second Indian War, the Abenaki Native Americans, allied with the French, attacked the town of Haverhill, Massachusetts. They killed 27 English colonists and took captives, including one Hannah Duston, her six day old daughter, and her nurse Mary. Hannah's husband Thomas escaped with the couple's other older children, though some people in Haverhill wondered if he was a coward. Some people thought then and now there's no way Thomas Duston should have been alive if his wife and baby were captured. Thomas' defenders argue that he had responsibilities to his other children to consider. As I've written elsewhere you have to make hard choices in tough situations. Hannah may or may not have been raped. That can't be determined. What is certain however is that the Abenaki military party decided that Hannah's new baby daughter Martha wasn't likely to survive the trip north. And they didn't want to be bothered with the trouble of taking care of a baby. So they killed the infant by dashing her brains out against a tree. 
As you might imagine that didn't go over too well with Mrs. Duston. But she bided her time. She was assigned/sold/gifted to a different Abenaki group. Six weeks later, in New Hampshire Hannah saw her opportunity. Along with Mary and another English captive, a fourteen year old boy named Samuel, she went Lizzie Borden on her captors while they slept. Hannah, Mary and Samuel killed two men, two women and six children.

Likely motivated by revenge, a bounty on Native American scalps, and most of all the need to prove that women and a youth had done what they claimed, Hannah Duston also scalped the Native Americans. She escaped back to her home. Hannah Duston became the first woman in colonial America to be honored by a statue. There are memorials and statues across Massachusetts and New Hampshire commemorating Hannah Duston. In fact the axe she used to handle her business is honored in a museum. Some descendants of the Abenaki felt that any glorification or commemoration of Hannah Duston was not only wrongheaded  but racist. 

Margaret Bruchak, an Abenaki historian, said in order to properly understand the Duston story, it’s important to understand the Abenaki culture’s view of combat and captivity.

“The whole point of taking a captive was to then transport that person safely. For the whole of that journey they were treated like family,” Bruchak said. “When captives were taken, they were almost immediately handed off from the warriors to individuals who would then look after them. Hannah, we know for a fact, was handed over to an extended family group of two adult men, three women, seven children and one white child.”

That’s why the Abenaki viewed Duston’s actions after she escaped with such horror, she said.
“It’s almost like the Geneva Conventions, when you think about it. Hannah betrayed the Abenaki Geneva Conventions. It wasn’t while she was in the midst of warfare that she did these supposedly brave acts. It was while she was in the care of a family,” Bruchak said. “If she had merely escaped, there probably would be very little story to tell, but the fact that she escaped, then stopped and went back to collect scalps – the bloody-mindedness of it is really quite remarkable. …

LINK
The Abenaki historian here glosses over the kidnapping of Hannah Duston. It takes some serious chutzpah to criticize Duston for bloody-mindedness after her baby was murdered. The reason that this story and the Abenaki reaction to it struck a chord with me is because it was not long ago that some conservative (and not so conservative) whites got very upset about the unveiling of a Charleston, South Carolina statue commemorating African-American freedom fighter Denmark Vesey, who attempted to lead a slave revolt and escape to Haiti. Vesey was betrayed, tortured and executed.

FAYETTEVILLE, N.Y. — ON Feb. 15, a group of activists in Charleston, S.C., unveiled a life-size statue of Denmark Vesey, a black abolitionist who was executed in 1822 for leading a failed slave rebellion in the city. For many people, Vesey was a freedom fighter and a proto-civil rights leader. But the statue, the work of nearly two decades, brought out furious counterattacks; one recent critic called him a “terrorist,” and a historian denounced him as “a man determined to create mayhem.”

Radio hosts, academics and newspaper bloggers condemned the project as “Charleston’s parallel to the 1990s O. J. Simpson verdict,” and suggested other African-Americans they believed more appropriate subjects of memorialization, like the rock pioneer Chubby Checker or the astronaut Ronald E. McNair.

LINK

Yes, because when I think of someone who stood up against all the odds and was willing to die for what was right, Chubby Checker is the first person who comes to mind. Ridiculous. That is exactly like an Abenaki historian saying that the Hannah Duston statues in Haverhill should be replaced with Rob Zombie ones. And the people complaining about the Denmark Vesey statue seem to have missed all the statues and other commemorations given to slaveowners and rebels. Now although you could make (and some have made) the argument that the European settlers never should have been in Massachusetts in the first place I don't think anyone would argue that a mother who had just seen her captors kill her infant child by dashing its brains out wouldn't be justified in seeking some payback. Similarly you have to be tone deaf and ignorant not to understand that if you violently enslave someone (and their children and their children's children) then you shouldn't be too surprised or outraged if they decide to make you bleed rather than submit any longer. Now whatever you think of violence (and if you're like most people you probably seek to avoid it) you must understand that violence begets violence and hate. In short if you mess with me I am going to mess with you. That's human nature. As Muhammad Ali said: “I'm a fighter. I believe in the eye-for-an-eye business. I'm no cheek turner. I got no respect for a man who won't hit back. You kill my dog, you better hide your cat.” There's no way we can logically admire Hannah Duston and scorn Denmark Vesey or Gabriel Prosser or Nat Turner. Or rather there is no way we can do that and still pretend to aspire to a universal sense of morality. If you have a severely attenuated moral sense that only responds to what is "good" for your kith and kin, then yes you can cheer for one and not the other, but don't be surprised if someone calls you on your hypocrisy. No human can be kidnapped, enslaved or see his or her relatives brutalized and not want to do something about it. It's a cliche but it certainly often remains the case that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. History is less about what actually happened and much more about what we're supposed to learn from what happened. So although history is past it's very much a political endeavor of the present. There is a reason why Duston is glorified while people like Vesey, Turner, Prosser and John Brown are ignored or denounced.

Is ObamaCare Really Falling Apart?

Many people complained about higher premiums during the first Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA (hereafter referred to as ObamaCare) enrollment period. With impressive celerity some media analysts and other ObamaCare supporters haughtily declared that all of those people were liars, frauds or Republican stooges. They were just too stupid to understand the good deal they were getting. Well you may have noticed that we are in the middle of a new ObamaCare enrollment period. And this time the profusion of complaints about sky-high premiums, high deductibles and co-pays, high drug prices, narrow networks or limited coverage simply can't be ignored or dismissed any longer. There's simply too much data available from the public, HHS, the various state insurance commissioners and the insurance companies themselves. Too many people are discovering that caveat emptor remains excellent advice when it comes to ObamaCare. Roughly half of the health co-ops have gone out of business while many insurers are requesting and obtaining double digit percentage increases in premium prices. If you, like most workers, are not receiving double digit raises at your workplace, an 11% increase in your monthly or bimonthly insurance premium presents a problem. Other insurers are hinting that they may leave the exchanges all together. The idea is to make money, not lose money. United Health is estimating an exchange loss of as much as $500 million. The best that supporters of ObamaCare can claim in response to this parade of horribles is that well things always cost more; this is probably the Republicans' fault somehow, and dammit we need single payer now. With the exception of a long shot funding question case argued by liberal apostate law professor Jonathan Turley and another frivolous dispute over who must sign a note saying they disagree with birth control coverage, all of the legal avenues to repeal or destroy ObamaCare have failed. Legally, anyway, ObamaCare is here to stay. The Supreme Court has twice declined to invalidate ObamaCare. Liberals met these Supreme Court decisions with transcendent joy, a Bronx cheer to conservatives, and internalization of the idea that legal victories meant that ObamaCare was a good thing. After all the Supreme Court said so. Anyone who questioned ObamaCare obviously hated people without insurance and wanted them to die. That is what many of the smart compassionate humane people told themselves. 

This is something of a deflection. In the C.S. Lewis Narnia book, The Magician's Nephew, Queen Jadis (The White Witch) tells the story of how, when faced with defeat in a civil war, she used a Deplorable Word which destroyed all other life on the planet besides herself. When questioned about the morality of this act Jadis responded that she won and winning is the only thing that counted. Fortunately there are no Deplorable Words for anyone to use. Still, like Jadis, ObamaCare supporters seem to have forgotten that a project's success can't be measured by just one variable. The only metric which they want to discuss is the number of people covered. What good is it to have people "covered" if they can't afford to use their "coverage"? Just because ObamaCare has been upheld in the the courts doesn't mean it will succeed. The problem with ObamaCare is (besides what I think of as an intolerable diktat to purchase a private good) is that the economics don't make sense. I said before that this ObamaCare program wouldn't work as designed. And it hasn't. ObamaCare framers attempted to ignore reality. Whether we like it or not, all else equal the population of older people costs more to insure than the population of young people. The population of women costs more to insure than the population of men. It's not possible to increase the coverage that insurance companies must provide, prevent them from charging gender and age based actuarially accurate rates, force them to cover pre-existing conditions, and think that consumer costs will decline. Costs won't decline! It's not politics. It's just math. 

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee said the 36 percent rate increase was necessary because it had lost money on its marketplace business after underestimating the use of health care by its new customers. In Minnesota, officials approved increases averaging 49 percent for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, the largest insurer in the market. Even with the increases, the company said, “Blue Cross is likely to experience continued significant financial losses through 2016.” Gov. Mark Dayton of Minnesota, a Democrat, said he was “extremely unhappy” with the high rate increases.

The Iowa insurance commissioner, Nick Gerhart, approved rate increases averaging 29 percent for Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield, the state’s dominant health insurer, and 20 percent for Coventry Health Care. The higher rates, he said, were justified based on the plans’ experience. Rates will rise next year by an average of 4 percent in California, one of the few states that actively negotiate prices, state officials said. In New York, state officials said rates would rise by an average of 7 percent. In Florida, consumers will see increases averaging 9.5 percent, the state said. But in Hawaii, the insurance commissioner this month approved rate increases averaging 27 percent for the Hawaii Medical Service Association and 34 percent for Kaiser Permanente health plans.

LINK

Premiums, deductibles and co-pays have risen and will continue to rise. Younger and healthier people, faced with premiums and deductibles that don't reflect their risks, will be less likely to buy costly health insurance simply to subsidize someone else. The people who will purchase this insurance are also the people most likely to use it. That's adverse selection. Well that's great for the customer. But it's bad for the insurance companies who will raise premiums to offset their exchange losses which will drive more young and healthy people away which will make companies raise their premiums to offset their losses and hello Mr. Death Spiral. The entire program starts to unravel. The company can't afford to sell insurance and the customer can't afford to buy it. It's incredibly important to emphasize that if this happens it will not be because of Republican malfeasance. No Republican voted for ObamaCare. Any death spiral will occur because of ObamaCare's internal contradictions.

What should have taken place was an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid for the impoverished/aged population who wanted health care coverage and couldn't get it. Then there should have been tax changes to provide greater funding for people with chronic or pre-existing conditions who could not otherwise obtain coverage. And obviously there were other moves the country could have taken. What we did instead was to implement tax increases and other social changes thru the marketplace and thus cause greater distortions than a general tax increase would have done. Politically the Obama Administration didn't want to own a middle class tax increase, thus the imprudent claims that average premiums would drop by as much as $2500 per family per year. Well that didn't happen did it. Tax increases would have been painful and unpopular but they also would have been more transparent and honest. When I purchase a product I am seeking to get the best deal for me and mine. When I pay my taxes I understand that I am helping the larger society, including people in situations I may never experience or those in situations I am not old enough or poor enough to experience yet. Paying taxes and buying insurance are completely different transactions. Trying to pretend that they are the same doesn't work. If I am in the individual marketplace I do not want to purchase an insurance product priced for someone much older that includes maternity/pediatric coverage, birth control coverage, or other useless add-ons. And I won't buy it--especially if you're charging me 30% more than you did last year. I don't have the money to pay for 10% premium increases let alone three times that amount. Multiply that decision by a few million people and that's where we are today. For too many people it makes more sense to forgo coverage and theoretically pay a penalty.

ObamaCare isn't going anywhere just yet. ObamaCare (or at least the most critical portions) can still be saved. But saving it would require a Republican House and Senate that was interested in doing work instead of hurling invective and a Democratic White House that could admit, however obliquely, that it got some very basic assumptions completely wrong. Neither of these things will happen now. But with more and more union leaders complaining about the implementation of the Cadillac Tax and more insurers worried about losing money on the exchanges the next President likely will have both the opportunity and the political space to make some much needed changes. Hopefully the next time someone builds a new program, he will pay closer attention to economic incentives.  There are some worthy things contained within ObamaCare. There are also things which make no sense. Again, it's not about politics. I'm not on the Right. I would support a program that helped people to get coverage who needed it and couldn't pay for it. But I wouldn't support a program that did this at the cost of messing up everyone else's coverage.