The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Ah, those subsidies....

A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled that those receiving Obamacare through the federal insurance exchange aren’t eligible for subsidies for their health-care coverage. 

The Affordable Care Act explicitly states that those who purchase insurance on “an exchange established by the State” are eligible for subsidies for their coverage, but challengers say that language does not include those covered by Obamacare’s federal exchange. 

That's because it doesn't.

The intent of the legislation was to "coerce" states into offering exchanges.  Some said "nuts", and the Feds then turned around and "interpreted" the statute to neuter what was intended to be a means of coercion but which had failed.

That's illegal -- period.

But nobody cares today about the law.  Nobody has cared about the law when it suits them for decades.  The lawless nature of our own government has reached the point of absurdity, and so the IRS simply "interpreted" the law to mean what they wanted it to mean.

Well, this judge said no.

We shall see how this all plays out as the various challenges work their way through the system; ultimately this likely will go back to the Supreme Court, where I suspect the black-robed bastards will again rule that The Constitution is a dead letter, effectively challenging both the States and The People to decide whether to sit for yet more lawlessness or finally stand up to both the black-robed brigands and the Feds generally and say this far you have come but not one inch more forward shall you move.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

An OpEd from the WSJ and then a series of letters went on to raise hell about the anti-vaccination movement in California and elsewhere.

Some of the explanation may be reasonable -- modern Americans, for example, have never seen polio and the suffering it causes.  Therefore the claims are, to most Americans, abstract -- they've never seen the price.

But there's another undercurrent here that is part and parcel of this story, and one that nobody wants to talk about.  That's the conflation between vaccinations that have little or no downside risk compared to the upside benefit, and for which the protected event is one that has no connection to personal choice, and ones that either violate that premise or where the protection is conferred against chosen behavior.

There are places where, if you travel, you're either strongly recommended to or required as a condition of your visa to have received certain vaccinations.  Why not enforce all of those here in America?  That's easy -- there is no such thing as a drug without risk, and if the benefit is small enough (that is, the risk of exposure is small enough) then the balance is not strongly toward the "you should get this" side.

Then there are those vaccinations such as Gardisil that are of dubious value and bear only on consensual conduct.  Gardisil allegedly protects against HPV, which in women can cause cervical cancer (men don't have a cervix, of course.)  However, to be sexually exposed you must (of course) have sex, and second the vaccine does not provide anywhere close to complete protection.  That in turn may lead you to engage in more risky behavior than you might otherwise, and actually wind up working backwards for that reason.  And there are direct risks -- specifically, there is a small but present risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome, an auto-immune disorder that is extremely nasty (it can kill, by the way) and, while rare, has as one of its possible triggering events the administration of this vaccine.

Texas tried to force administration of Gardisil upon school children and there are allegations that improper conflicts of interest and financial ties were behind the attempt.  This sort of incident does not help in the general case, and can lead people to conclude that the entire process is corrupt.  To the extent that this results in parents refusing other vaccinations, such as MMR, it's outrageous -- but the blame for that should be laid at the feet of people like Governor Perry!

Then there is the "herd immunity" argument -- that because some kids (and adults) are unable, for medical reasons, to take vaccines you owe them a duty to do so.  That's utter nonsense.  You owe nobody any such duty, period.  That those people are the unfortunate victims of a disease such as cancer that renders them unable to seek protection on their own from a virulent thing in the common environment doesn't obligate you to take risk on their behalf.  Your risk should be taken on your behalf, and it's important that we stop trying to play this damned nanny game; if you can't make the argument for vaccination on the merits of your health (as the one taking the needle stick) then the argument has failed in its essence.

Indeed, the essence of that argument, if you wish to follow it, comes directly with a demand to close the border immediately and deport all illegal immigrants instantly on detection.  Why?  Because very few if any have all of the vaccinations that are common in America.  You can talk to me about "my" duty (or that of my offspring) with regards to you (as opposed to the direct benefit to her) when the border is closed and every single illegal is immediately deported without delay, as they form a much higher transmission risk vector than anyone in America ever will be simply because we have fewer reservoirs of these diseases in our population in the first place.

Finally, there is another part of this debate that nobody wants to have, but we all should: Scientific fraud is almost never punished in any meaningful way.

As just one example the so-called study that allegedly tied thimersol in vaccines to autism was found to be bogus and was retracted.  The authors faced no consequence of materiality.  The climate-scare people who intentionally doctored tree-ring data by selecting the side of the tree they took their bores from so as to show "higher temperatures" (when the other sides showed no such thing -- it was entirely natural variability) faced no material consequence for their intentional deception.  Those who have falsified data in medical trials have never, to my knowledge, been indicted for what amounts to outright fraud upon the public, so-called "scientists" that rig various other experiments (remember the "exploding fuel tank" tests that were in fact conducted with a lit firework-style device on the outside of the tank?) don't go to jail and, for that matter, neither does anyone else involved in these fiascos.

Remember, we're talking about someone's kid here.  The damage to scientific credibility over the years has been immense, and nowhere is it more-evident than in the medical realm.  Cholesterol and fat in the diet .vs. eating lots of fast carbohydrates, anyone?

If we're going to have an honest debate on this topic we need to cut the crap across the board.  All vaccines are not so simple as to say "You should (or must) have them all."  There are those that clearly fall into this category, such as MMR and Polio; the personal consequences (to the person who doesn't have them) are severe if the disease is contracted, and the risks are small.

But beyond those there are many others where the argument is far less-clear.  Chicken pox and Gardisil are two of them in this category, with the latter being of particular concern and worthy of ridicule as a "required" vaccination because the route of exposure to the allegedly-protected-against disease is found only in either consensual sexual conduct or sexual assault (a felony.)  Neither of those is anywhere close to completely effective in providing protection either; for most of the other common vaccines such as MMR and Polio the conferred protection is very close to 100%.

Parents and others deserve honest information and this begins with criminal prosecution for cooked data presented to sway public policy as the open and notorious fraud that it is; we cannot expect people to behave simply "as demanded" when the record shows that many of those demands are in fact driven by corruption rather than scientific reality.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2014-10-01 09:05 by Karl Denninger
in Flash , 654 references
 

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

In a word, no.

(Reuters) - U.S. health officials said on Tuesday the first patient infected with the deadly Ebola virus had been diagnosed in the country after flying from Liberia to Texas, in a new sign of how the outbreak ravaging West Africa can spread globally.

The patient sought treatment six days after arriving in Texas on Sept. 20, Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told reporters on Tuesday. He was admitted two days later to an isolation room at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas.

The problem here is that this patient was in the US for several days and wasn't hospitalized until a couple of days after showing symptoms, when he was able to pass the disease to others.

The probable impact of this is quite low, as this individual wasn't here with the intent to spread the virus, and thus only had contact with a few people.  Those people are about to find out all about how little your Constitutional Rights matter when government gets scared, as I suspect they will all be placed under strict, and likely guarded at gunpoint, quarantine for the next three weeks or so.

And yes, our President believes he has the authority to do that -- and he well might (I know of nobody who has brought such a challenge to the courts -- yet.)

The usual scaremongering nonsense has started and you should be able to winnow your reading list dramatically in terms of web-based resources this morning.  We'll see how many of the readers and commenting people here have the discernment to process this with a rational mind and how many are unfit to be engaged in public discourse on important topics of the day.

Does this mean you should ignore this event?  Absolutely NOT

A few dozen people with intent to spread this disease in the United States could cause an unbelievable amount of harm.  As I have noted before if you're not prepared to "bug in" for three to six months and perhaps as much as twelve to eighteen months you have no effective defense if things go sideways.

But today is not the day to bolt the door, and this particular event is not a trigger, despite the screaming coming from some quarters on the web -- including people who should know better.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Come and get it!

Financial analyst and writer Karl Denninger says forget about President Obama’s promise of “no boots on the ground” in the fight with the Islamic State.  There will be boots, and Denninger explains, “Air power has never won a war, and it never will.  You can bomb people until you think you bomb them back into the Stone Age, and they just go hide.  You destroy their infrastructure, and they just come back out.  The only way you take territory is to go and take territory. . . . The real problem is we, as a nation, have looked the other way while a number of countries in that part of the world have armed and trained terrorists.  I will include on that list Saudi Arabia.  In the classified sections of the 9/11 Report, there is some pretty damning evidence about them being directly involved . . .  in the murder of 3,000 Americans on our soil.  That is not yet in the public, and it still is not in the public more than 10 years later.  There have been enough people talking about it that it is no longer in the realm of tinfoil speculation.  We can state we can be reasonably certain that this is, in fact, what happened, but these are our so-called best friends.”  Denninger goes on to say, “You have a group of people that don’t have the kind of political debate that we have in this country and most of the free world.  It is a very different view.  It is a medieval view.  It is a view that you used to see in 1100 A.D.  They understand one language, and it’s gunfire.”

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.