Outlook madness continues; Obamacare Senators; Uranium

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor.

-Robert A. Heinlein

The fact that in normal life and in psychiatry, anyone who “consistently and persistently insists” on anything else contrary to physical reality is considered either confused or delusional is conveniently ignored.

Michelle Cretella, M.D.

If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.

Barrack Obama

The map is not the territory.

Alfred Korzybski

If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.

Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983


Six Republicans Who Voted for Obamacare Repeal in 2015 Sank the ‘Clean Repeal’ Bill Today

Another day, another defeat for the Senate’s health care effort


n 2015, when presented with a bill that would have repealed much of Obamacare’s taxes and regulations, Senate Republicans were eager to send a political message. Though the bill would be vetoed by then-President Barack Obama, 52 Republicans voted “aye.”

With 48 of those 52 senators still in office, the Senate on Wednesday could muster only 45 votes in favor of a “clean repeal” of Obamacare. Six senators who voted for the 2015 bill voted against the repeal effort.

They are Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.

Dean Heller, R-Nev.

John McCain, R-Ariz.,

Lisa Murkowski R-Alaska

Rob Portman, R-Ohio.


These will probably be known in future as Obamacare Republicans. Susan Collins of Maine has already earned that title.

Straight repeal of Obamacare, leaving us where we were before Obamacare was passed, would, according to those who vote against repeal, leave millions without health care insurance. It is never mentioned in these debates that “insurance” against pre-existing conditions is not insurance at all; it is a subsidy, an entitlement; an obligation for those who have actual insurance to pay for events that have already happened to other people, and who now can say they have health care insurance; while everyone else’s premiums skyrocket. Someone you don’t know, who lives in another state, has a misfortune. You decline to donate to charity to pay for his (or her, or his becoming her) misfortune or sex change operation, and the government will send a tax collector, followed if need be by the hangman, to collect for you in the guise of “insurance” for that individual.

But we can’t just let people die in the streets.

Nor did we before Obamacare; somehow we muddled along. That, however, is generally not mentioned in these debates; and any case no reforms to Obamacare are to be considered by the Democrats who vote unanimously to leave it unchanged: after, the disasters aren’t happening on their watch. Look over there: one of President Trump’s relatives let a Russian business man pay for his dinner. Or maybe he paid. Or there’s a rumor that the people who run Snopes paid. Or maybe Stalin through his estate… Russia. Russia. Russia.


0130 and bedtime.  FLASH: McCain saves Obamacare.


Collins of Maine, Murkowski of Alaska, and McCain of Arizona voted to save Obamacare from any change or repeal; the vote was 49 to 51.  If any single one of these Republicans had voted with the rest of the Party, at least something would have happened, as a 50-50 vote would have allowed the Vice president to cast the deciding vote. Why McCain decided to save Obamacare is not immediately known to me. He blamed it on the House, according to one news story, but I do not understand that. Obamacare is now his legacy. (And of course all the Democrats. I trust you like your health care premiums.)




“uranium flowing to Russia”

You might want to check your sources there. According to the NRC Uranium One never got a license to export and “no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.”


Unless you have some source other than the “Clinton Cash” book, your statement is probably false.


This turns out to be extraordinarily difficult to do. It seems to be undisputed that the State Department approved a deal with a Russian company, but the approval was by a committee on which the Secretary of State sat. I could find no record of the votes of that Committee. It is probable that no Uranium actually has been exported as a result of this deal, although the Russian company owns 20% of it. I admit I was quoting Sean Hannity who famously talks about this. Even reading the Snopes rejection of the charge makes me wonder what’s going on here, but it is likely that no physical Uranium changed hands.

It appears not to be in dispute that a Russian oligarch donated tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation; apparently there are no Russian causes or charities in need of that money? And it is not in dispute that Mr. Clinton’s speaking fees, already outrageous, were doubled – well over half a million dollars per speech – and he delivered at least one at this rate. I have been unable to discover the nature of the speech, but given what was paid for it, perhaps it is held in close confidence.

Neither of these incidents is a criminal activity, but then most if not all of the endless expensive investigation of President Trump’s involvement with the Russians has yet to produce an actual crime or indictable offense, and most investigation allegations and results were pretty laughable. I would be astonished if the Russian Ambassador did not attempt to maintain close contact with anyone who might let slip some information useful to he boss, or if Mr. Putin did not encourage such activities, but of course I have no sources other than the media on this.

It is self evident that refusals to obey subpoenas, deleting subpoenaed messages, physical destruction of computing equipment, careless handling of classified documents, and receiving tens of millions of dollars in donations as well as hundreds of thousands in speaking fees does not get the investigative attention that a private real estate deal before the election, and a useless meeting with a Russian lawyer who deceived young Trump as to the purpose of the meeting receives.

Clearly the FBI is still afraid of the Clintons; more afraid than they are of the President of the United States. President Trump does not control the Deep State, and seems unable to dismiss holdovers from President Obama.


My Outlook has gone mad. It will not let me search certain folders. It will not run rules on others. I am trying to straighten things out, but it is taking time. Microsoft is improving outlook for enterprise users. Small users can safely be ignored, do they are.

And now (1500) I have visitors.

2330: After dinner, visitors left, brainfog enough that I am tired of fighting Outlook: the goal is to assemble a good outlook mail file that has all may stuff in it and which I can search and run my rules on; amazing how difficult that is; I’ll explain later.


Microsoft Office Help

I doubt that they can’t find people who use their products. It’s just that the people doing the Help files are programmers, working at Microsoft.
As programmers, they already know how the program works, so the help files and screenshots are just reminders in case a detail slips their mind.
And as programmers inside a huge bureaucracy, they don’t meet users, or care about them.

Besides, if they can’t remember how to do something, and the help file isn’t helpful, just call up the person who modified the program, and ask.
To write instructions or help files properly, said files have to be tested on complete outsiders, people without a clue as to how to do the task. Hand them the files or manual, watch them try, and if they can’t figure it out, explain what they didn’t get from the help file, then modify the file to clarify. Iterate till ten or so people in a row can find the proper help file, and do whatever is required, without asking a single question.
But all that requires taking the job of writing instructions at least as seriously as writing the programs.


As it happens. One of my recent visitors is a former Microsoft executive. He sort of agrees. I remember when bill Gates ran the place; he was proud of having ordinary users use his stuff, and learning their problems so they could fix them..Ah well.


From years ago (I have been forced to look at what I thought were archived files):

I still don’t understand how the Affordable Care Act is constitutional when it is a direct tax that is not apportioned and, therefore, seemingly unconstitutional. But, there is another interesting angle to the tax and the subsidies that may surprise the residents of 36



The law states that tax credits will be available through so-called exchanges, or online marketplaces, “established by the State.” When it was being crafted, it was assumed that all 50 states would create their own exchanges. After it passed in March 2010, it became clear that many states would rely on the federal government to operate them, as the law allows.

In 2012, the Internal Revenue Service made the subsidies available in all states. The law’s challengers claim they cannot be offered in exchanges operated by the federal government. Thirty-six states fit into that category. Without subsidies, insurance costs would skyrocket.



The populist press says this could “kill Obamacare”. I doubt it. I think it is more likely this president will stand up and make a speech saying that, under this law, states have the right allow the federal government to set up and run insurance exchanges for them. And, if they do that, they aren’t eligible for the subsidies.

He, and other democrats, can appeal to the people and say the law is clear, his IRS tried to help them in the interim, but now their states will either have to get their act together or those subsidies will no longer be available and the states are to blame for this — not him, not his party, and not his initiative passed into law.

What happens next would depend on how the states react. Would they find ways harness public outrage and focus that on this president, his party, and his policies passed into law by a congress controlled by his party? Or, would the smooth talking leftists stall the matter long enough that enough state politicians would make their own exchanges for fear of losing offices in the latest debacle?

I can tell you one thing, if the Supreme Court rules in the way the snip from this article outlines, shares of ConAgra foods will increase as cynics by massive amounts of Orville Redenbacher’s popcorn as they sit back, much, and laugh at the latest debacle of this coming summer.

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo


Remember when the Republicans were going to repeal Obamacare?


I am experiencing odd problems posting this, buy it appears to be going up all right; it tells me that the server returned an improper response.  But the text goes up; unfortunately there is an endless spinning wheel in the tab. Perhaps it will fix itself.

Hah. It sort of did. I no longer get the “improper response:, it loads quicker – buy the spinner is still in the tab.  Enough. I’m for bed. Good night.

And now the spinner is gone.  No trace of the problem.  it did fix itself.



Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.




Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.