Case Challenging California’s Yolo County Gun Carry Permit Law Brought Back from Dead

The Second Amendment Foundation
announces some good news today
in a long-gestating case
challenging the gun carry permit laws of Yolo County,
California:

The Second Amendment Foundation and The Calguns Foundation
earned a significant victory today when the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded the case of Richards v. Prieto,
challenging the handgun carry license issuing policy of Yolo
County, California, Sheriff Ed Prieto.

“Today’s ruling reinforces the Second Amendment’s
application to state and local governments, and will help
clear the way for more California citizens to exercise
their right to bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice
President Alan M. Gottlieb….

The case was originally filed in 2009 as Sykes v.
McGinness
, and challenged not only Yolo
County’s policies, but Sacramento
County’s then-restrictive practices as well. SAF, Calguns and
two private citizens, Adam Richards and Brett
Stewart, continued pursuing the case against Yolo
County after Sacramento County agreed to relax its
policy….

The Richards case was argued at the same
time, and to the same panel, that earlier
decided Peruta v. County
of
 San Diego, a similar case challenging
overly-restrictive carry license policies. Yolo
County and Sheriff Prieto argued that their policies were
distinguishable from those struck down in Peruta, but
apparently the three-judge panel unanimously disagreed.

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision moves our Carry License Compliance
Initiative forward,” explained CGF Executive Director Brandon
Combs. “We’re already preparing the next phase of litigation to
ensure that all law-abiding Californians can exercise their right
to bear arms.”

Steven Greenhut wrote last month for Reason on the
other,
more well-known California carry permit case
, Peruta v. San
Diego.

Second Amendment superlawyer Alan Gura first discussed this case
with me
in a Reason interview back in 2009
.

The 2011 decision
that was reversed and remanded today
, one that tried to kill
the case by claiming “regulating
concealed 
firearms is an essential part of Yolo
County’s efforts to maintain 
public safety and
prevent both gun-related crime and,
most 
importantly, the death of its citizens. Yolo
County’s policy is 
more than rationally related
to these legitimate government goals” and that while
the scope of rights under the Second Amendment is
ambiguous and no doubt subject to change and evolution over
time. Nonetheless, even in light of Heller and McDonald, Yolo
County’s concealed license policy is constitutionally
valid.” 

Maybe not, and the court will have to
reconsider.

The out-now April print issue of Reason has a feature
by me on “Five Gun Rights Cases to Watch.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1hNcSCU
via IFTTT

The Herd Mentality – The Left Tail Will Follow The Right Tail

Submitted by Guy Haselmann of Scotiabank

The Herd Mentality – The Left Tail Will Follow the Right Tail

Last Friday in NY, I attended a fabulous Monetary Policy Forum sponsored by the Initiative on Global Markets, a thought-leadership-medium set-up within the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. This annual event is increasingly being viewed as ‘Jackson Hole East’. Eight current members of the FOMC were in attendance including Stanley Fischer (not yet confirmed). Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin gave the keynote lunch address.

Each year the conference begins with a highly-topical report co-authored by a few economists and academics, and which serves as the basis for initial discussion. This year’s paper was entitled “Market Tantrums and Monetary Policy” (on website). The paper was successful at proving that there is the potential for financial instability even with subdued leverage in the banking system.

The authors drew five conclusions:

1) the absence of leverage in the banking system is not a sufficient reason for Monetary Policy to disregard concerns for financial stability

2) the usual macroprudential toolkit does not address instability driven by non-leveraged or non-bank investors;

3) forward guidance (like ZIRP – my words) can encourage risk taking that can lead to risk reversals;

4) financial instability need not be associated with insolvency of financial institutions; and

5) Tradeoffs for monetary policy are more difficult than portrayed.

The tradeoff is not the contemporaneous one between more versus less policy stimulus today, but is better understood as an intertemporal tradeoff between more stimulus today at the expense of more challenging and disruptive policy exit in the future.

The paper did not comment on how policy makers fundamentally assess and mollify the tradeoff between attempts at stimulating real economic activity and financial stability. I was surprised that Fed officials so openly admitted their policies cause moral hazard problems and power the ‘search for yield’. One interesting point is that Fed officials seem to tacitly admit that supervisory tools alone may be insufficient to protect markets against excessive risk-taking and that monetary tools may be required.

The word “tantrums” referenced in the title was the paper’s attempt to explain adverse market reactions, e.g., last year’s reaction from ‘taper-talk’. The authors stated that risk premiums can jump quickly, simply because non-bank market participants (read: mutual funds) are motivated by their peer performance rank. The authors had 3 subsequent conclusions:

1) the relative peerperformance race causes momentum in return;

2) return chasing can reverse sharply; and

3) changes in the stance of monetary policy can trigger heavy fund inflows and outflows.

These conclusions partially explain (empirically) the herd mentality and momentum in recent years behind tight credit spreads and elevated equity prices. Investors are so fearful of missing the upside and underperforming peers that they frantically scramble to remain ahead of them (i.e., seek risk). However, the conference and paper suggests that there is a threshold point during the Fed’s attempt to normalize policy where the tide reverses and investors join in a selloff in a race to avoid being left behind. This is why I’ve been calling it the greater fool theory.

The most surprising part of the conference was Rubin’s keynote speech. Most thought he said little, but I found the topic of his speech a bit startling. Rather than speak about Washington’s messy politics or such, he basically gave a speech that criticized and questioned Fed policy.

He began by saying that forecast models don’t work; particularly with the complexities of today’s modern world. He said that it was unwise to depend too much on  models and that nothing can replace experience and intuition. He said, there is never perfect information and uncertainties always exist, so decisions must be made through judgment about the probabilities of potential outcomes. He suggested that anecdotal information was as helpful as quantitative analysis. As a case in point, he mentioned a recent dinner with 10 senior corporate executives who all unanimously said that business investment and growth were sluggish.

Rubin said the Eurozone is more vulnerable than most think, especially given EM exposures. He suggested there is great tail risk that is not properly reflected in market prices. He said tail risk always exists, but it can’t be ignored. He said the best way to deal with it today given high probabilities and low risk premiums is to reduce exposures.

The last part of his speech continued to criticize the Fed in his friendly and humble way, often saying that “you know more about this than me, but….”. He thought the risks to QE3 far outweigh the benefits. He blasted Fed policy for elevating moral hazard and encouraging excessive risk taking. He commented on the unpredictable market reaction from, and difficulties in, unwinding the balance sheet and trying to normalize policy. He said the ultimate effects cannot be ascertained by models (rub it in). He blasted forward guidance as having no validity saying that it is impossible to know what is going to happen in 6 months.

Cracks in the foundation are evident. Buy Volatility.

“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I – I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference” – Robert Frost


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1hN9702 Tyler Durden

Russia Today Anchor Quits Live On Air Over “Whitewashed” Coverage Of Putin

Presented with little comment, suffice to add former Washington DC RT correspondent Liz Wahl’s comments that “personally she cannot be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the action of Putin…”  At least RT was correct when it said yesterday that “Contrary to the popular opinion, RT doesn’t beat its journalists into submission, and they are free to express their own opinions, not just in private but on the air.”  One wonders if Ms. Wahl’s next stop will be MSNBC, FOX or CNN, where the truly unbiased coverage can be found.

Today’s drama takes to a entirely new level the statement voiced by another RT presenter who also denounced as “wrong” Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine.

“I can’t stress enough how strongly I am against any state intervention in a sovereign nation’s affairs,” Abby Martin declared in her news programme.

 

RT said it respected Ms Martin’s views, and that she would not be reprimanded.

 

Ms Martin made her remarks at the end of her Breaking the Set show, broadcast from a studio in Washington.

 

“Just because I work here doesn’t mean I don’t have editorial independence,” she said, adding: “What Russia did was wrong.”

 

The outspoken presenter admitted that she did not possess in-depth knowledge of Ukraine’s history or “cultural dynamics”, but insisted that military intervention was not the answer.

 

“I will not sit here and apologise for, or defend, military aggression,” she said.

RT responded as follows:

In response to the journalist’s on-air statement, the Russian TV channel said: “Contrary to the popular opinion, RT doesn’t beat its journalists into submission, and they are free to express their own opinions, not just in private but on the air.”

 

The broadcaster added that it would send Ms Martin to Crimea to “give her an opportunity to make up her own mind from the epicentre of the story”.

So far Ms. Martin has not taken up RT’s offer to provide unbiased reporting from the “epicenter” of the story.

And now back to the US mainstream media’s expansive coverage of the story of the day that it may well have been Kiev’s own current government ordering the murder of its own civilians in an apparent provocation to escalate the regime change. Wait what?


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1lzEZbU Tyler Durden

Putin’s Peace Prize

Click here to follow ZeroHedge in Real-time on FinancialJuice

There are days when it seems that the Nobel Peace Prize should just go home and put their feet up, ask the home-help to make them a cuppa and to bath them and then they can be put to bed and tucked in. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee has done some daft things in the past, like giving the European Union the 2012 prize when in actual fact it should never have had it since it cannot be given in to an entity or a group, but only to one individual and anyhow: since when did the EU actually stop (it starts, doesn’t it?) wars? Europe has based its peace on waging wars and maintains peace through simple sheer military force and nothing else in the past decades since World War II. Now, we discover that Vladimir Putin has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Admittedly, it was before they actually knew he was officially going (had gone?) into Ukraine, guns ablazing in true Yanky fashion to ‘blast the brains out of the baskets’.

Candidates

There have never been so many candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize. Either that means they are having a hard time choosing who should be the winner of the SEK 8 million ($1.24 million) prize money or they are spoilt for choice in a peaceful world. There are 278 candidates and to boot there are 47 organizations for the 2014 prize. Having said that, they decided to meet on Tuesday this week to confirm the candidates. Do they read the newspapers, watch television even or do they know what is happening on their very doorstep? Did they see that Putin has been in Ukraine officially since the start of this week gung-hoing it? Putin did actually enter the Crimean region on February 22nd 2014 straight after President Viktor Yanukovich was ousted from power like a bad smell. Forgive me for saying, but the West and the East are currently hotting up and having a war of words for the moment on whether or not Putin can actually do something or not. Although, the Russian leader was actually very right when he said that it wasn’t the West that should be giving lessons to anybody about invasion and least of all the USA (the last bit was thought so loud you could hear it).

The Nobel Prize Committee stated that the reason they met on Tuesday was as follows: “Part of the purpose of the committee’s first meeting is to take into account recent events, and committee members try to anticipate what could be the potential developments in political hotspots”. Obviously the Siberian wind has been blowing over that hotspot for them to miss it. It’s not so much that Putin might have been nominated as a candidate as the reason why we allow the deceit, the imposture, the farcical waste of time at the Oslo Committee to continue dictating who they believe to be the best example of peace. The final list selected on Tuesday was narrowed down to between 25 and 40 candidates.

USA

Anyhow, the National Security Agency also got nominated. Wow! They really did accept that? Still, we could say that they gave President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize too back in 2009. At the time he stated that he was ‘surprised’. We can confirm that we were too. Did a man really deserve to get given a prize, apparently for having done nothing, in the hope that it would encourage him to act peacefully? I’ll do almost anything if yougive me the prize first. So would most people. Would you want the National Security Agencygetting the Nobel Peace Prize? What for? Pray do tell!

Europe

The Nobel Peace Prize has been handed out since 1901. There are sad times when it is done for political reasons (are there any other sorts of times?). There are times when it is downright ridiculous, such as the 2012 prize for the European Union. We all know that most of the wars in the world have either been started for geopolitical, commercial, exploitation or colonization reasons by either the five permanent members of theSecurity Council of the United Nations or by the leading countries in the European Union. Europe never maintained peace in the world. It has participated in every single war and conflict that has ever taken place since the wonderful founding of the machinery that was meant to maintain peace.

The Committee

The five members of the Nobel Prize Committee are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, the Storting. It’s impossible for it not to be political. But, at least make us think that it is! One of those members is the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Another is a Public Affairs Advisor. The third is a lawyer and President of the Norwegian Bar Association. The fourth is the Senior Political Advisor to the Progress Party’s Parliamentary Group. The Last is a University Professor.

So, we have a whole array of what is absolutely impartial. Politics, Law, Public Advisory Sector and Academia. We certainly have every chance of gaining in impartiality.

Can you name a war in the world that hasn’t be started by one of the countries in the western world or that was actively participated in by them? So, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee could be just about as daft as they have always been and actually give Putin what they want. What’s more worrying is that Putin, wasn’t exactly Mr. Peace before he went into Ukraine!

But, maybe they should change the name. It’s not a Nobel Prize, but a NOVEL one. Very novel indeed.

Originally posted: Putin’s Peace Prize

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1e38Lh7 Pivotfarm

Proposed Maryland Law Could Lead to Confiscation Of Guns from Noncomplying Folks with Criminal Records

As J.D. Tuccille has
noted here regarding Connecticut
, people don’t tend to want to
give up weapons they already own just because it is now technically
illegal for them to have them.

Maryland is contemplating testing this out when it comes to
people legally
barred from gun ownership
because of their criminal records, as
Associated Press reports via CTPost.com:

The House
of Delegates
 is considering a bill that would link
Maryland’s gun registry to its criminal database.

State law requires gun owners to surrender their weapons if
they’re convicted of felonies or any violent crimes, but
Del. Luiz
Simmons
, D-Montgomery, said Maryland
State Police
 lack a systematic way of enforcing
this…..

State Police estimate that if they linked the databases, they
would find 10 percent of registered gun owners — about 110,000
people — would be disqualified. They estimate a rate of 1 percent
each year thereafter.

Under Simmons’ plan, police would run a systematic check at
least twice a year.

The Department of Legislative
Services
 believes it would cost about $300,000 to create
the database. The department also anticipates a need for seven new
full-time troopers to investigate findings from the new database,
with a cost of more than $1 million a year for salaries
and equipment…

Several independent gun advocates submitted written testimony
before a Tuesday hearing. They argued against the measure, calling
it unnecessary and potentially invasive.

“This smacks of a police state mentality,” said a resident
named Ronald
Smith
.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1cD2pow
via IFTTT

Russia Today Anchor Liz Wahl Resigns Live On-Air Over “Whitewashing” of Putin’s Actions in Ukraine

no moreTV
journalist Liz Wahl
resigned live on-air
from Russia Today today, saying that she
could not “be a part of a network funded by the Russian government
that whitewashes the actions of Putin,” that she was “proud to be
an American and believe[s] in disseminating the truth.” Wahl began
her comments by referencing her colleague Abby Martin, who took
time at the end of her show earlier this week to condemn Russian
military intervention in Ukraine. Wahl explained that her personal
background informed her decision: her grandparents fled from the
Soviets during the Hungarian revolution, her father was a U.S.
veteran, and her partner is a physician on a U.S. military base,
where he sees “the ultimate prices that people pay for this
country.”

Watch Wahl’s live on-air resignation below:

As of today, it doesn’t appear RT’s YouTube page includes this
clip or Abby Martin’s from earlier this week.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1iaSA4v
via IFTTT

Are You Crazy To Continue Believing In Collapse?

Submitted by James H Kunstler via Peak Prosperity,

It’s nerve-wracking to live in the historical moment of an epic turning point, especially when the great groaning garbage barge of late industrial civilization doesn’t turn quickly where you know it must, and you are left feeling naked and ashamed with your dark worldview, your careful preparations for a difficult future, and your scornful or tittering relatives reminding you each day what a ninny you are to worry about the tendings of events.

Persevere. There are worse things in this life than not being right exactly on schedule.

Two simple words explain why more robust signs of an economic collapse have hung fire since the tremors of 2008: inertia and fraud.

Never in human history has there been such a matrix of complex systems so vast, dense, weighty, and powerful for running everyday life (nor a larger population engaged in it). That much stuff in motion takes a while to slow down. The embodied energy has kept enough of it running to give the appearance of continuity. For instance, agri-biz still sends its amber waves of grain and tankers of corn-syrup to the Pepsico snack-food factories, and the WalMart trucks still faithfully convey the pallets of Cheetos, Fritos, Funyons, and Tostitos from the Pepsico loading dock to the big box aisles of glory. The freeways still hum with traffic even though oil is pricey at $100 a barrel. The lights stay on. The gabble and blabber of Cable TV continues remorselessly in the background of life. All of that is due to inertia. It gives the superficial impression of the old normal carrying on. Things go on until they can’t, in the immortal words of Herb Stein

The fraud is present in the abuse and misrepresentation of official statistics used as metrics in government policy, in the pervasive accounting chicanery of that same government in its fiscal dealings, as well as in our leading financial institutions and corporations, including control fraud in banking, interest rate rigging, mortgage and title fraud, front-running, naked shorting, re-hypothecation, money laundering, pumping-and-dumping, channel stuffing, the endless innovation of swindles, and, most importantly, the fundamental mispricing of the cost of money, which reverberates through everything else, most particularly real estate, stocks, and bonds. Beyond that, in the shadows of the shadowland known as shadow banking, a liminal realm of secrets and intrigues, only a few are privileged to know what is going on, and you can be sure they only know their end of the trade — while immense sums of ever more abstract “money” slosh through the derivative sewers on their way to oblivion in the ocean of failed trust.

So, don’t feel bad if this colossal armature of folly still stands, and have faith that the blinding light of God’s judgment will eventually shine even unto the watery depths where failed trust has sunk. Sooner or later the relationship between reality and truth re-sets to the calculus of what is actually happening.

Meanwhile, the big questions worth reflecting upon are: What is the shape of the future? How might we conduct ourselves in it and on our way to it; and how will we think and feel about all that? It’s very likely that the journey to where we’re going will be rougher than the actual destination, once we get there. There is a hearty consensus outside the mainstream financial media and the thickets of academia that the models we have been using to understand the economy look more broken each month, and this surely adds to the difficulty of constructing our own mental models for how the everyday world of the years ahead will operate.

Some of the commentators in blogville and elsewhere like to blame capitalism. Capitalism is a phantom adversary. It isn’t an economic system. It isn’t an ideology, really, or a belief system. If the word means anything, it describes the behavior of accumulated surplus wealth in concert with the known laws of physics — the movement of energy through time and space — and the choices we make organizing society in relation to that.  The energy is embodied as capital, represented in money for convenience. Interest expresses the cost of money over time and the risks associated with lending it. By the way, interest rates work the same way under all political systems, despite attempts in some societies to criminalize it.

During the high tide of the industrial expansion, when fossil fuels were cheap and we accumulated the greatest wealth surplus ever in history, humanity made some very bad choices, squandering this possibly one-time bonanza. We fought two world wars, and lots of wasteful lesser ones. Russia and its imitators attempted to collectivize wealth under gangster government and only succeeded in impoverishing everyone but the gangsters. America built suburbia and Las Vegas. The one thing that no “modern” culture did was plan for a future when the fossil fuel orgy and the techno-industrial fiesta might wind down, which is exactly the case now. Instead, we opted for the Julian Simon folly of crossing our fingers and hoping that some unnamed band of genius wizard innovators would mitigate the problems of resource scarcity and population overshoot just in time.

The demonizers of capitalism propose to remedy our compound predicament by just getting rid of money. But the idea of a human society without money leaves you either up a baobab tree on the paleolithic savannah, or in some sort of Ray Kurzweil techno-narcissistic masturbation fantasy multiverse with no relation to the organic doings on planet earth. I suspect as long as there are human societies there will be things to exchange that have a quality we call “money,” and as long as that’s the case, some individuals will have more of it than others, and they will lend some of their surplus to others on terms. What most people call capitalism was a model of economy derived from a particular transitory moment in history. It seemed to describe reality, but after a while it didn’t because reality changed and it was, finally, just a model. Nothing lasts forever. Boo-hoo, Karl Marx, J.M Keynes, and Paul Krugman.

What’s cracking up first is the complexity and abstraction of our current money operations, sometimes loosely called the financialized economy. If we blame anything for our problems with money, blame our half-baked attempts to mitigate the wind-down of the techno-industrial cavalcade of progress by issuing ersatz surplus wealth in the form of debt — that is, promises to fork over hypothetical not- yet-accumulated wealth at some future date. There are too many promises now, and too few trustworthy promisors, and poor prospects for generating the volumes of wealth as we did in the recent past.

The hidden (or ignored) truth of this quandary expresses itself inevitably in the degenerate culture of the day, the freak show of pornified criminal avarice that the USA has become. It only shows how demoralizing our recent history has been that the collective national attention is focused on such vulgar stupidities as twerking, or the Kanye-Kardashian porno romance, the doings of the Duck Dynasty, and the partying wolves of Wall Street. By slow increments since about the time John F. Kennedy was shot in the head, we’ve become a land where anything goes and nothing matters. The political blame for that can be distributed equally between Boomer progressives (e.g., inventors of political correctness) and the knuckle-dragging “free-market” conservatives (e.g., money is free speech). The catch is, some things do matter, for instance whether the human race can continue to be civilized in some fashion when the techno-industrial orgy draws to a close.

In Part 2: How Life Will Change, we sort out the new operating principles that will matter more in the future than the trash heap of current cultural norms. The society that emerges from the post-growth economy will surely require a new moral compass, a set of values based on qualities of behavior and things worth caring about — as opposed to coolness, snobbery, menace, or power, the current lodestars of human aspiration. 

Click here to access Part 2 of this report (free executive summary; enrollment required for full access).

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1os6EbK Tyler Durden

Reason Needs Temporary Proofreaders

ReasonMake an awesome
publication even betterer bettir butter better than it
already is!

Help bring Reason magazine’s history into the
future.  Reason is looking for temporary proofreaders
to help clean up and finalize articles from Reason’s
archives that have been imported for display on the web. We
are looking for hourly workers who can work remotely or at our D.C.
office. Students and individuals with an interest in
Reason’s mission are encouraged to apply.

More here: http://ift.tt/NxFFQB

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1hMRbmn
via IFTTT

Mark Spitznagel Warns “Fed’s Frankenstein Markets Are Totally An Illusion”

"The market is an artificial fabrication," Universa's Mark Spitznagel warns in this brief but revealing interview, adding that "to think this can persist is simply naive." Talking to Maria B on FOX, Spitznagel thinks the market could be cut in half if the Fed stepped away now and points out the fallacy of a belief in any persistent tapering as the Fed will step right back if the market goes down. The gap between the market's "alternate reality" and actual reality is something that simply cannot persist and explains now is the time to be out, to prepare for when the market reprices (as opposed to suggesting people short the market) which is exactly what traders are not doing – as it would be irrational to think longer-term, "if they don't make their next week, month, quarter; they won't be around."

"Asset markets now are totally an illusion… they are pricing in an alternative reality that is so different what is going on"

 

"The reason for this is the Fed – the modern day Victor Frankenstein – who have created this thing that otherwise wouldn't live"

 

"We are led to believe there is this vigor out there, whereas in reality, if the Fed pulled out, the market would be cut in half"

 

"Japan is a crazy science experiment… it's a scary scary place [to invest]"

This brief clip covers a lot of ground but is well worth the price of admission as Spitznagel explains why the Fed is making the short-termist perspective of everyone from traders to corporate managers far greater…

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1dt7B1H Tyler Durden

Hello HillaryCare: ObamaCare Deadline Extended Beyond Obama’s Term

In what is becoming an epic embarrassment, the WSJ reports that the Obama administration announced today that consumers can keep insurance plans that don't comply with the federal health law for another two years, pushing a potential firestorm over cancellations and broken promises that "you can keep your health plan". As The Hill adds, the unprecedented move will protect vulnerable Democrats in the midterm elections by staving off a wave of cancellation notices and for some consumers, rather stunningly, Obamacare will not be in place for all Americans when President Obama leaves office. Sickeningly, the administration explicitly gave cover to 13 vulnerable Democratic lawmakers by saying the extension was developed in “close consultation” with those members.

 

Yet another extension (Via WSJ),

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that consumers can keep insurance plans that don't comply with the federal health law for another two years, pushing a potential firestorm over cancellations until after midterm elections.

 

Previously, some consumers could keep insurance plans that didn't comply with the 2010 Affordable Care Act until roughly the end of this year, as long as their state regulators and insurance company allowed it. Now, consumers will have up to an additional two years to do so, putting their plans in place until roughly 2016.

But the farce gets worse (Via The Hill),

The policy also means that one of the key features of the Affordable Care Act — minimum healthcare benefit requirements — will not be in place for all Americans when President Obama leaves office.

The administration's spin…

Senior administration officials insisted that the change will not substantially alter the Affordable Care Act and emphasized that their focus was on flexibility for individuals.

But the reality is politics as usual…

President Obama and many Democratic lawmakers made promises that consumers could keep their current coverage under the healthcare law, and Republicans were eager to use those statements as leverage in their effort to retake the Senate.

 

The administration explicitly gave cover to 13 vulnerable Democratic lawmakers such as Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.) by saying the extension was developed in “close consultation” with those members.

Meaning that you can keep your health plan (well beyond the Tea Party's original demands that were so rancorously disavowed last year by the Democrats)…

The policy prolongs the administration's “keep your plan” fix from last fall and applies to the individual and small-group insurance markets, potentially affecting 12.5 million people, officials said.

 

The timetable will allow consumers to renew old health plans for the last time on Oct. 1, 2016, meaning some plans will continue into 2017 under the next president.

 


Administration officials denied that the 2016 campaign season will see its own wave of cancellation notices, predicting that most people will have migrated into the new marketplaces by then.

Welcome to HillaryCare…

Source: Cagle


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1l2BYxJ Tyler Durden