No, digital is not always best



In today’s digital world, it’s easy to think that everyone loves everything digital. After all, many businesses conspicuously post a “No Cash Accepted” sign in their windows, and it’s getting increasingly harder to remember the days when no one needed a charged cell phone to get into a concert or board an airplane.

But don’t let this electronic ubiquity fool you. Lots of people still prefer paper bills, statement printouts, physical mail, and other such hard copies.

The proposed rule plays right into the hands of scammers and identity thieves.

Let’s dig in a little on this.

The U.S. Department of Labor and the Securities and Exchange Commission are each proposing a rule, “Regulation E-Delivery,” that would switch from paper to digital the default way that Americans receive certain critical communications. In other words, this new rule would mean that Americans would automatically receive communications electronically and would affirmatively have to ask to revert to paper delivery.

Let’s look at each one of these entities separately.

The DOL’s proposed rule would automatically move Americans to electronic delivery of their health plan documents, unless they actively work directly with their insurers to revert to paper delivery. This move would risk vulnerable Americans having more difficult access to — or missing altogether — critical health insurance information if they miss a notice or can't reliably access the internet.

Americans should have the right to choose how they receive critical health plan documents, like HIPAA and COBRA notices, benefits summaries, and other important disclosures. Regulation E-Delivery would flip the choice from automatic-paper to automatic-digital, resulting in major hurdles for specific populations, particularly seniors, rural residents without reliable internet, and low-income households.

The proposal would automatically move people to Regulation E-Delivery, unless they actively work with each insurer to restore paper delivery. This is the opposite of how the system should work. People should not default because they miss a notice or because — like most people — they have trouble navigating large corporate bureaucracy.

The people most comfortable with Regulation E-Delivery are the most tech-literate folks and can much more easily opt-in under the current system. Those who depend on paper often lack that same digital literacy. This effort seems like a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.

Right now, people who want electronic delivery can easily choose it, and those who want paper can keep getting it without having to do anything. There's no reason to flip that on its head.

Some people argue that this proposal is a cost-saving measure, but is that really believable?

Health insurance companies have a history of pocketing savings and not passing them along to their customers. Also, has anyone done a serious analysis of the costs to consumers for missed notices or out-of-date information? This proposal leans heavily on cutting corporate paper, printing, and postage costs, without seriously weighing what that means for the people on the receiving end.

RELATED: Silicon Valley is building a god in its own image

Gremlin/Getty Images

The SEC's proposed Regulation E-Delivery would make electronic delivery the default for sensitive financial documents, reversing today's arrangement where those documents arrive on paper, unless for them electronically.

The Regulation E-Delivery hurdles would be much more complicated than a simple “opt-out” checkbox. Investors could be required to contact each financial firm separately — through multiple websites, portals, or telephone systems — to preserve or restore paper delivery across their accounts.

This mandate disadvantages folks who either are not as savvy with digital communications or who have unreliable internet/cell service. These people would be the least likely to successfully navigate the many barriers that this new rule would require to preserve paper communication.

The proposed rule plays right into the hands of scammers and identity thieves by requiring the same basic “click the link” actions that investors have been conditioned to avoid.

Some people simply prefer physical copies of certain things. Perhaps you’re the type of person who prefers a physical book — not an e-reader — to read on the beach. Or perhaps you’d rather have a printed, rather than a texted, receipt from a restaurant. Similarly, many Americans still prefer important health care and financial documents in paper form, as they can be easier to read, file, and refer to.

It also is questionable whether a paper option would even remain that long if Regulation E-Delivery goes into effect. Millions of Americans have learned the hard way that the federal government’s promise of consumer choice is not always worth the paper it’s printed on.

Remember when President Obama promised Americans that they could keep their doctors under Obamacare? Forgive us if we take the Regulation E-Delivery promise of enduring choice between paper and electronic delivery with a similar dose of skepticism.

The DOL and the SEC should reject this proposed rule and keep the current system, where Americans can keep what they have now or choose for themselves whether they want to switch to digital.

Democrats Openly Declare Their Plans To Infiltrate Rural American Towns

Democrats might have a messaging problem, but they also have a ground game to render rural America irrelevant in elections.

Corporate giants vs. the family farm: New initiative targets the monopolies pillaging rural America



The American family farm is being systematically wiped out as corporate monopolies are taking over our food supply.

That’s why Joe Maxwell of the Farm Action Fund has launched the bipartisan Rural Independence Initiative — to take on what BlazeTV host Daniel Horowitz calls the pillaging of rural America.

“We just released a paper along with the launch of the Rural Independence Initiative, a bipartisan, cross-partisan organization, the only political organization that’s pro-healthy food, pro-farmer, pro-rural America,” Maxwell tells Horowitz.

“We want candidates that will fight for markets — fair and free markets — healthy food, and economic independence from monopoly control,” he explains, pointing out that he doesn’t care whether they’re Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.


Maxwell says this is because “both parties are working against the people and for corporate monopoly oligarchy control of our economy.”

“And therefore, what we eat, what we can raise, how we’re going to produce it, and then ultimately control of our government,” he adds.

“Exactly, because if you look at the farm bills, which are always overwhelmingly bipartisan, they’re pushed by both parties, the same monopolization of the land, obsessive support for very specific things, very specific crops, often not even for food,” Horowitz agrees.

“So, they’ll say, ‘I’m for rural America, America’s farms, America’s heartland.’ But the reality is, they’re all on the same side. They’re all against us,” he adds.

And while Maxwell is fighting for rural America, what he’s fighting for isn’t special treatment, but fairness.

“A rural worker will make about $24,000 a year less than the average metropolitan worker. ... Rural grandparents will see more of their grandchildren die before the age of 1 than metropolitan grandparents, and rural grandchildren will lose their grandparents three years earlier than metropolitan,” he explains.

“So, the policy has to begin with a lens towards representing people, individual businesses — whether that’s a meat packer or a light manufacturer in rural America or whether that’s the farmer,” he continues. “We have to break the grip that these companies have on these sectors to restore the wealth and the quality of life for rural Americans.”

Rural America’s new plague: Hicklibs and fail-libs



Rural America was once a refuge from radical leftists. Fewer amenities and job opportunities were a price some conservatives were willing to pay if it meant their traditional values and patriotism didn’t have to compete with progressivism.

But those pastoral sanctuaries are being blotted out one by one thanks to two new phenomena: hicklibs and fail-libs.

“As media and universities became more radical, their disciples moved into rural America through government-mandated institutions like schools and libraries,” says BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre.

“Thus the hicklib was born.”

A hicklib, MacIntyre explains, is “usually a social outcast, a failson who needs a moral explanation for why he hates the community he never fit into.”

“His resentment searches for a theory that will dignify his rage, and the progressive missionaries installed in his local institutions are happy to provide one,” he says.

The message is one of moral superiority: America is evil; those who disagree are “racist, sexist, backwards religious fanatics, destroying the lives of minorities"; and “white Christian culture” is the real evil in the world.

“The hicklib's failures to fit in become proof of moral superiority,” says MacIntyre.

Having found a solution to his inferiority complex, he sets out on a new mission.

“The hicklib shows up at town council meetings in a Black Lives Matter shirt to denounce minority oppression in a community with no actual black people. That absence naturally becomes further proof of the town's intolerance,” says MacIntyre.

“He loudly organizes Pride events attended by two other hicklibs. That little clique stages protests, distributes flyers, and imitates urban activist rituals. By practicing the sacraments of their faith, they hope to summon the spirit of the age to judge their reactionary little town.”

The hicklib, MacIntyre argues, has become a “plague” for rural communities.

But as plagues often do, the hicklib has evolved.

“As the value of college degrees collapse, a new breed is emerging: the fail-lib,” says MacIntyre.

Unlike the failure-to-launch hicklib, the fail-lib is outwardly successful.

“The fail-lib worked hard in high school and gave progressive teachers every approved answer. She wrote her college entrance essay on the oppression of trans women of color in coal mining. On campus, she became an activist. She secured a degree in some woke humanities discipline and earned straight A's by repeating everything her communist professor told her,” MacIntyre illustrates.

But despite her academic success, the fail-lib fails to land the “cushy corporate HR job” her expensive college degree promised her. Turns out, college degrees no longer come with the status they used to, and the “poor, oppressed immigrants” she’s long defended are now the preferred candidates.

Instead of moving to a big, liberal city like she planned, the fail-lib is forced to dwell among the rural “townies” she disdains.

She “was promised luxury and elite influence; now she serves the people she despises while searching for any opportunity to make their lives worse,” says MacIntyre, speculating that the rise of artificial intelligence will only “intensify this problem.”

“The fail-lib might make less money than you; she may be less respected than you; she may even be despised by the townies she once mocked, but in her heart, she knows she's superior, and nothing could ever convince her otherwise.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Auron MacIntyre?

To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist's commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Virginia Democrats’ Power Grab Is A Giant Middle Finger To Rural Americans

Democrats often claim they want to win over rural voters. Yet when it comes to hiding their scorn for them, they’re hopelessly incontinent.

Medicaid for millions, misery for the middle class



For months, Republicans and Democrats alike have insisted on keeping the Medicaid subsidy scam alive — even as it drives inflation and enriches the health care cartel. With the Biden-era expansion of Obamacare “marketplace” subsidies set to expire in December, both parties want to renew them. But this moment offers Republicans a rare opportunity: Finally lower health care costs for Americans not living on government handouts.

Obamacare buried the middle class

The ill-named Affordable Care Act helped Republicans win more elections than any issue in recent memory. But since 2016, the party has run from the fight. The result: Individual plans became unaffordable for anyone not getting subsidies, and employer-based coverage got gutted. Workers earn less in take-home pay and pay more for thinner plans.

The signature feature of Obamacare was turning catastrophic coverage into a luxury item.

Rather than continually shielding consumers from Obamacare’s price hikes with subsidies, why not repeal the mandates that caused the pain in the first place?

The numbers speak for themselves. In 2013, just before Obamacare took full effect, the average unsubsidized premium for individual coverage was $197 per month. By 2017, it had nearly doubled to $393. Family plans saw a 140% jump in that same period, from $426 to $1,021. Today, a typical family policy without subsidies costs $2,000 to $2,500 per month.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, average family premiums climbed from $13,770 in 2010 to $25,572 in 2024 — an 85% increase. And that “Cadillac plan” price tag now buys you higher deductibles and fewer benefits than a cheap pre-Obamacare policy.

Younger workers don’t even know what hit them. They’ve inherited a system designed to fleece them and can’t afford to opt out.

Even employer-based insurance has suffered. Since 2014, family premiums have risen 52%, while workers’ share has jumped 31%. Deductibles for individual plans have increased 53%, reaching $1,787 in 2024. Americans now pay more out of pocket for less protection.

This wasn’t an accident. It was baked into the law. Obamacare banned insurers from pricing plans based on risk, age, or gender. That shifted costs from older, sicker Americans to younger, healthier ones. Those who don’t qualify for subsidies pay top dollar for a bloated, mandatory benefits package they didn’t ask for.

Meanwhile, over 70 million lower-income Americans got dumped onto Medicaid — and Republicans went along with it. If Medicaid expansion is the new baseline, then at least fix the rest of the system for the middle class.

Caught in the middle

The political class loves to talk about the millions who gained “coverage” through Medicaid expansion and premium tax credits. They ignore the millions who earn too much to qualify for substantial assistance but too little to afford the staggering premiums.

These Americans are Obamacare’s silent victims — and they’re forced to choose between health coverage and other basic needs.

Subsidies don’t solve the problem. They mask it. The real crisis is the cost of health care itself.

Republicans already get hammered for supposedly “cutting Medicaid,” even when they’re only targeting fraud. They pay the political price for Obamacare without reaping any of the reform benefits. So why not go on offense and start dismantling the cartel?

Demand real reform

Instead of rubber-stamping another round of subsidies, Republicans should demand one simple trade-off: Let states offer unregulated, cheaper health care plans.

Don’t extend subsidies for the wealthy or the idle. And if temporary subsidies are unavoidable, they should be tied to an overhaul next year.

The signature feature of Obamacare was turning catastrophic coverage into a luxury item. Letting states revive affordable catastrophic plans would free up cash for direct primary care — and crack the cartel’s grip on pricing.

RELATED: Pushing back against the big Medicaid lie

Yurii Karvatskyi via iStock/Getty Images

And that’s just the beginning. Congress should allow health savings accounts, self-employment deductions, and employer exclusions to apply to alternative options like health-sharing ministries and concierge care. Workers should be able to use HSA funds to pay their own premiums or direct care memberships.

Employers should receive the same tax benefits for contributing to an employee’s HSA as they would for funding a traditional insurance plan. That gives workers real purchasing power and puts pressure on the cartel to compete.

Break the cartel. Rebuild the market.

Even if Republicans won’t fully repeal Obamacare, they must scrap the ban on physician-owned hospitals. That carve-out handed a monopoly to corporate health systems and helped bankrupt rural hospitals — a crisis both parties now pretend to solve with more subsidies.

You can’t subsidize your way out of a bottomless pit of inflationary grift. The only real solution is to let Americans escape the sinkhole that turned affordable health care into unaffordable sick care.

This is the GOP’s last chance to fix what it failed to kill. Make it count.

Time to redraw America’s borders — cities, counties, and beyond



Maps of the United States haven’t moved much lately. They should.

A cursory glance at historical maps over time — whether in the U.S. or globally — shows the dynamic movement of political boundaries. Since the birth of the United States, new states have been carved out of existing ones, county lines redrawn, and so on. Nowadays, though, aside from the occasional annexation or incorporation, boundaries have become relatively static.

Next time a state like Illinois comes crawling to Congress for a bailout, federal lawmakers should make border reorganization part of the deal.

That’s a sign of stagnation, not dynamism. And it needs to change.

Similar to how failing public schools precipitated the school choice movement, the failure of municipalities is spawning a growing movement for secession, annexation, and political reorganization.

Liberating red America

The municipal secession movement already has its “Lexington and Concord moment” in Baton Rouge and St. George, Louisiana. Fueled by failing schools and rampant crime, a section of East Baton Rouge Parish began its long, litigative battle for secession. In 2024, its work paid off. The parish successfully seceded from the consolidated county government, forging the new city of St. George, Louisiana, which is now the fifth most populous city in the state.

It won’t be the last.

Several local secession movements are emerging in conservative regions across the nation that are under the thumb of Democrat governments, with little hope of initiating regime change at the ballot box due to current districting laws.

The “Greater Idaho” movement, for example, is growing in conservative Eastern Oregon, now encompassing 13 counties that have approved measures to secede from deep-blue Oregon and be annexed by Idaho.

In rural Illinois, 33 counties have passed referenda seeking to leave the state entirely. Some want to form a new state, and others propose annexation by Indiana. Lawmakers in Indiana even established a formal boundary adjustment commission earlier this month to explore the idea.

Northern California’s long-standing movement to form a new “State of Jefferson” could one day merge with similar efforts in Southern Oregon.

Unchaining red municipalities

At the municipal level in large, deep-blue cities, purple-red neighborhoods like Staten Island in New York City or Buckhead in Atlanta could lead the charge for de-annexation.

Even in ultra-liberal cities like Austin, the de-annexation movement is gaining ground. The Lost Creek neighborhood, forcibly annexed in 2015, had had enough. Higher taxes, dismal city services, and left-wing pathologies drove residents to demand freedom. The Texas legislature intervened, passing a bill that allowed Lost Creek to vote itself out. It did — and won. More neighborhoods may follow.

This is the way it should be done, with the state stepping in to rescue disaffected neighborhoods from mismanaged cities.

Where cities have collapsed — Detroit and Baltimore come to mind — state governments should consider carving up failed urban zones and allowing them to reorganize under fresh charters. Let those areas be resettled under new leadership, new institutions, and new expectations.

In places where Democrat stronghold cities dominate entire counties — often electing radical officials who impose their ideologies on rural areas — states must step in.

In Harris County, Texas, radical leftist Lina Hidalgo runs the show from Houston. In Travis County, home to Austin, Soros-backed District Attorney José Garza applies “justice” as his donors see fit.

County residents who live outside of the big cities calling the shots would be much better served by county officials who reflect their values — not the radicals deeply planted in their city halls. They deserve a way out.

Bankruptcy poses an opportunity

States and municipalities filing for bankruptcy pose a tremendous opportunity to redraw the lines. In 2023, for example, Wisconsin’s GOP-controlled legislature bailed out bankrupt Milwaukee. The legislature could have liberated neighborhoods that never wanted to be annexed by Milwaukee in the first place. They missed the opportunity, however.

RELATED: ‘Municipal conservatism’ offers hope to crime-ridden blue cities

Photo by Matt Gush via Getty Images

Next time a state like Illinois comes crawling to Congress for a bailout, federal lawmakers should make border reorganization part of the deal. Downstate counties could be annexed by neighboring red states. Bailout in, blue control out.

During the Civil War, when Virginia seceded from the Union, West Virginia was born — its counties carved out and reorganized under federal protection. Today, as California’s officials promise to defy federal law and actively rebel against national authority, it may be time to ask: If rebellion defines California’s government, why not liberate its non-rebellious counties?

Beyond the US

Even national boundaries are up for reconsideration, too. That may sound radical, but it’s happened before.

Canada’s strange political experiment is showing signs of collapse. The ruling class in Ottawa derides the very existence of their country — obsessed with “stolen land” narratives and hostile to their own national culture. Their last remaining shred of civic unity is anti-Americanism.

But not all Canadians share that view.

The prairie provinces — Alberta and Saskatchewan — stand apart. Their culture, economy, and values are more closely aligned with those of the American Midwest than with those of Toronto or Quebec. Suffocating under anti-energy, anti-farmer policies, Alberta, in particular, is ripe for annexation.

Let’s add another star or two to the flag. The cowboy provinces would be a better fit in the U.S. anyway.

No borders are forever

Existing city, county, state, and national borders are not sacrosanct. If history is any guide, they will eventually change.

The only question is whether we’ll wait until the change is forced upon us — or whether we’ll act while there’s still time to do it peacefully and deliberately.

The map will change. Let’s make sure it changes for the better.

Gerrymandering Democrats Tighten Grasp On Conservative, Rural Oregon

A gerrymandered district means a Democrat will represent rural, conservative central Oregon in Congress for the first time in decades.

Maybe Sometimes, Do Pick Up The Hitchhiker

Community is important, but it takes effort. Sometimes your neighbor needs a favor.

Chicago-dwelling college teacher says people should not live in rural areas: 'The solution is to give them generous grants to relocate among other humans'



Chicago-dweller Adam Kotsko, a faculty member at the Shimer Great Books School of North Central College, has publicly opined that individuals should not reside in rural settings.

"In discussions of reducing car dependency, one often hears, 'What about people in remote rural areas?' And my gut instinct is -- people shouldn't be living there in the first place. The solution is to give them generous grants to relocate among other humans," tweeted Kotsko, who is also the author of multiple books.

"'But what if they like living in remote rural areas?' Sorry, you can't always get what you want. A lot of people would like to live in dense, transit-rich settings but can't -- either because they can't afford it or it simply doesn't exist where they are," he tweeted. "And if this sounds harsh -- don't worry, it will never happen, because our governmental institutions are INSANELY biased in favor of rural areas. They'll be fine. I'm just a guy over here having an opinion," he added. He also wrote, "'Isn't it mean to imply that rural people's lifestyle is bad and wrong?' As someone who lives in Chicago, all I can say to that is: cry me a river."

\u201c"But what if they like living in remote rural areas?" Sorry, you can't always get what you want. A lot of people would like to live in dense, transit-rich settings but can't -- either because they can't afford it or it simply doesn't exist where they are.\u201d
— Adam Kotsko (@Adam Kotsko) 1661094042

Kotsko said that in his understanding, individuals living in sparsely populated areas are poverty stricken and "essentially trapped."

"My understanding is also that a lot of people in remote rural areas are desperately poor and essentially trapped there," Kotsko tweeted.

Kotsko also issued a series of tweets discussing ideas about such an urban-centric society.

"My ideal land use distribution (based heavily on KSR): all agricultural land is collectively owned and scientifically managed to balance quantity, quality, and variety of food against sustainability and ethical practices. No single-family or corporate for-profit farms," he declared. "Young adults have to do a period of public service, and one option would be a 'tour of duty' as a farm worker for a few years. Everyone would at least know someone who knows firsthand what goes into food production," Kotsko continued.

"The overwhelming majority of people live in a handful of ultradense urban cores, connected by high-speed rail. No car-based suburban communities exist. A handful of people stay in rural areas full-time to manage the work brigades or run wilderness retreats or whatever," he added. "The human footprint would be vastly less in this system -- all land not used for agriculture would be left wild. Another public service option would be dismantling the suburbs -- stripping copper wire and other useable resources, removing toxins, then leaving them to rot."

\u201cThe human footprint would be vastly less in this system -- all land not used for agriculture would be left wild. Another public service option would be dismantling the suburbs -- stripping copper wire and other useable resources, removing toxins, then leaving them to rot.\u201d
— Adam Kotsko (@Adam Kotsko) 1661174131