**Written by Doug Powers
Just one month ago, our celebrity betters were back atop their national TV soap box and taking pot shots at one of their favorite targets:
9 to 5’s Jane Fonda, Dolly Parton and Lily Tomlin once again proved that they’re the feminist heroes we need while reuniting at the Emmy Awards.
While presenting an award at Sunday’s gala, the ladies couldn’t help but notice the similarities between the sexist boss played by Dabney Coleman in their beloved movie, and the current occupant of the White House.
“Back in 1980, in that movie, we refused to be controlled by a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot,” Jane Fonda said to a huge applause.
To an even more rapturous response, Lily Tomlin added: “And in 2017, we still refuse to be controlled by a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot.”
They say things like that to wild applause from like-minded libs who call that courageous, all the while the elephant in the room snickered, because they all knew, including Fonda:
Jane Fonda regrets not speaking up earlier about Harvey Weinstein.
The film star, who is also an active women’s rights advocate, told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Thursday that she “found out about Harvey about a year ago.”
“I’m ashamed that I didn’t say anything right then,” Fonda said.
Side-by-side this perfectly sums up self-righteous, holier-than-thou Hollywood:
— Doug Powers (@ThePowersThatBe) October 15, 2017
Glaring hypocrisy, what a way to make a livin’! At next month’s Academy Awards, will Hollywood have the courage to present a sizable portion of their own industry with a collective Oscar for “Outstanding Achievement in Hypocrisy, Selective Outrage and Denial”? Of course not.
**Written by Doug Powers
Michael D. Tanner
For all the headlines about “dismantling Obamacare,” President Trump’s executive order will likely have less of an impact than its supporters hope or critics fear. Still, it represents a modest step toward giving consumers more choices and expanding millions of Americans’ access to lower cost insurance that better fits their individual needs.
First, understand what this order is not. It neither takes anyone’s insurance away nor removes protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
What it does is allow small businesses that band together to buy group insurance plans to be treated the same way as big companies are today. That includes the ability to buy insurance across state lines, and an exemption from some of Obamacare’s expensive mandated benefits. Plans might offer fewer benefits, but they could cost a lot less.
President Trump’s executive order will likely have less of an impact than its supporters hope or critics fear.
Individuals within a company still can’t be charged more or denied coverage because of their health, but companies with healthier work forces could receive lower overall premiums. And purchasing insurance across state lines challenges the power of the insurance cartel’s monopoly power in some states.
If individuals end up being allowed to buy insurance on these association plans, it would dramatically expand options for millions of Americans.
This wouldn’t come close to fixing all of Obamacare’s problems, but it’s still a win for consumers.
This executive order should be considered separately from the administration’s effort to stop paying price stabilization subsidies to insurance companies. In that case, the administration is essentially complying with a federal court ruling that the subsidies were illegal. Yes, if the subsidies stop it could further destabilize insurance markets, but that was starting to happen anyway.
Ideally, Congress should have rewritten the Affordable Care Act, and in using an executive order to rewrite parts of the health care law, President Trump is following a route repeatedly trod by President Obama. Only this time, the president’s actions will give consumers more freedom rather than less.Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.