8:00 am - Dog food! My favorite thing!
Friday, April 30, 2010
8:00 am - Dog food! My favorite thing!
Thursday, April 29, 2010
How should school officials handle a situation like this?
Girl, 6, Handcuffed, Committed Because Of Classroom Behavior - Most Popular News Story - WPBF West Palm Beach
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. -- A Port St. Lucie first-grade student was handcuffed and committed to a mental health facility because of her classroom behavior, and her parents are furious that the school took such extreme measures.
Mickey Shalansky explained Wednesday what he said happened to his 6-year-old daughter at Parkway Elementary.
"She couldn't put her in two handcuffs because her wrists are that small, so she put them both in the same handcuff and left marks on my daughter's arms," Shalansky told WPBF 25 News' Bob Kaple.
But a St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office report paints a much different picture.
Deputies said his daughter, Haley, got upset and stormed out her classroom when her teacher asked her to do something. The report said it then escalated into a temper tantrum in the principal's office.
According to the incident report, a deputy said Haley was out of control. It said she "kicked the wall, went over to the desk and threw the calculator, electric pencil sharpener, telephone, container of writing utensils and other objects across the desk."
She was then handcuffed.
"I don't think it should have had to come to this -- you know, to put a little girl, 6 years old, 37 pounds in handcuffs and take her away in a police car," Shalansky said.
Even worse is what happened the next day, Haley's parents said.
A deputy was called to the school again after Haley had another tantrum in the classroom and principal's office.
The sheriff's report said she was yelling, throwing things and hit the principal, who is eight months pregnant. This time, she wasn't handcuffed. She was committed to a mental facility.
"I was terrified," mother Kathy Franklin said. "I left work crying, terrified. Where is my baby? What are they doing with my baby?"
Haley's parents said their daughter has a temper problem, but has no history of mental illness. Her mother said the school should have called her so she could pick up her daughter rather than have her committed.
"They have looked at her here," Franklin said of the New Horizons mental health facility. "There is absolutely nothing wrong with my child. I work in daycare. I know what a child that has problems -- you know, I know how to deal with them. I know what they act like."
Shalansky said to have his daughter committed is "just wrong."
The report also said the school has contacted Haley's parents several times about setting up a meeting to discuss her behavior, but they have never shown up.
Franklin said she was supposed to meet with school officials Tuesday but had to cancel because she had car problems.
Meanwhile, her parents have kept Haley and her sister home from school.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
This study analyzed data from 275 families with children aged 2 to 48 months. For six months, children wore a device once a month for 12 hours that recorded surrounding speech and television sound for later analysis. Children's language capacity was assessed periodically using the Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition.
The researchers found that the number of conversational turns between children and adult caregivers is associated with higher language development scores.
This provides support to inform parents that they should continue to provide speech input to their children by talking to them, reading them books, and by telling them stories. But even more importantly, parents should be told that having a conversation with their child by eliciting talk from the child is even more beneficial to language development.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
They studied 24 young healthy adults, of whom 12 were choristers and 12 were not musicians. They had them listen to a selection of music with different tempos, as well as silence, in random order while their heart rate, respiration, blood pressure, skin vasomotion, and middle cerebral artery flow velocity were measured.
In both the musician and the non-musician groups, there was a significant correlation between respiratory and cardiovascular signals and the musical profile of vocal and orchestral crescendos, notably in terms of blood pressure and skin vasoconstriction.
Uniform emphasis in the music produced skin vasodilatation and a lowering of blood pressure. Since they stipulate uniform, it would be interesting to see how some of the erratic nature of RAP and some rock and roll would cause changes, possibly raising blood pressure.
This study may lead to the use of music as a practical means to induce body sensation (e.g., increase in heart rate or by skin vasoconstriction). This could lead to new therapeutic approaches to help in rehabilitative medicine for strokes and other diseases.
It would be interesting to survey what liberals and conservatives listen to and whether it correlates to lifestyle choices and health.
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Washington Post (not known for its conservative viewpoints) published the following article Obama's disregard for media reaches new heights at nuclear summit
One particular excerpt is as follows:
The only part of the summit, other than a post-meeting news conference, that was visible to the public was Obama's eight-minute opening statement, which ended with the words: "I'm going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session."
“The One’s” open and transparent government is a joke. But as my dad always said; “consider the source”!
Friday, April 23, 2010
"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem.
"No problem, just let me in," says the Senator.
Also present is the Devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
"Now it's time to visit heaven," St Peter says.
So, 24 hours pass with the Senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing.
"Well, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven.
The Senator reflects for a minute, then he answers,
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The Devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder.
"I don't understand," stammers the Senator.
The Devil looks at him, smiles and says,
Today .... you voted."
Thursday, April 22, 2010
But the Democrats cannot stand for individuals to take control of their own outcomes and their ideology needs to prevent this from occurring. So, as you can imagine, the current Bills being considered will limit these types of products either directly or indirectly.
According the Obama and the Democrats; they know what is best for you!
CONGRESS DECLARES WAR ON HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS
While Congress has been debating health reform, employers have been creating new consumer-driven health care plans. In fact, CDHC plans are the only type of health insurance that has been shown to reliably change patient and doctor behavior in ways that lower costs and improve the quality of care, says Ronald E. Bachman, FSA, MAAA, is President and CEO of Healthcare Visions, Inc. and a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.
More than half of employers now offer consumer-driven options, including Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) or Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs). In 2010, nearly 18 million people will be enrolled, says Bachman.
Federal legislation can stop progress in its tracks, however. For example, the health care bill passed by the Senate (December 23, 2009) does not directly outlaw HSA-eligible plans, but it restricts HSA options in insidious ways that will delay, deny, defeat and ultimately kill them, says Bachman:
HSA health plans are insurance plans that allow an individual and/or his employer to deposit funds into a special savings account.
The funds are not subject to the income tax if withdrawals are used to pay out-of-pocket medical expenses.
Right now, HSA plans are the only form of health insurance under which an individual's out-of-pocket exposure is limited by law.
Currently, the limits are $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families.
A plan could have lower deductibles and require patient copays up the total limit, or it could have deductibles as high as $5,950/$11,900 so long as the plan pays all costs above those amounts.
The Senate bill limits the deductible for small group plans to $2,000 for singles and $4,000 for families -- roughly one-third the level allowed under current HSA law -- with copays above the deductible.
Many people would choose a $5,950 deductible over a $2,000 deductible and place the premium savings in an HSA, but this is a choice the Senate bill would deny them.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Most of J.Q. Public do not believe the massive spending has produced or saved the jobs you continually claim and we are tiring of your “forked tongue”.
On anniversary, Obama defends economic stimulus Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama vigorously defended his $787 billion stimulus on Wednesday, insisting it rescued Americans from the worst of the economic calamity and ripping Republican critics who called it a waste.
Obama and Vice President Joe Biden launched a sweeping effort to convince skeptical Americans that the stimulus has been beneficial on the one-year anniversary of a plan that was pushed through the U.S. Congress by Democratic majorities.
Obama, in a White House speech, said he believed the stimulus will save or create 1.5 million jobs in 2010 after saving or creating as many as 2 million jobs thus far.
His point was to show that the stimulus, while admittedly unpopular, had the effect of keeping the U.S. economy from plunging into a second Great Depression.
"Our work is far from over but we have rescued this economy from the worst of this crisis," he said.
As Obama spoke, many administration officials were fanning out across the country this week to promote projects that have been funded by the stimulus to show Americans its results.
For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded $1.5 billion on Wednesday in stimulus grants to local and state governments to back 51 transportation projects.
The White House hoped that once Americans in their towns and cities saw the results of the stimulus, they would realize it has helped.
Obama has much work to do to convince Americans who are still struggling to find work amid a 9.7 percent jobless rate.
A CBS News/New York Times poll last week found that only 6 percent of Americans believed the package had created jobs. Another poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation showed a majority opposed the stimulus program.
And the price tag of the stimulus has gone up. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that when all is said and done, the package will end up costing $862 billion because unemployment compensation has been costlier than expected.
ELECTION YEAR PRESSURE
All this comes as Obama and his Democrats face pressure to show results in an election year in which their large majorities in Congress could be at risk.
Republicans eager to score political points emailed out to reporters the original administration estimates from a year ago that showed the U.S. jobless rate would only rise to 8 percent under the stimulus.
"In the first year of the trillion-dollar stimulus, Americans have lost millions of jobs, the unemployment rate continues to hover near 10 percent, the deficit continues to soar and we're inundated with stories of waste, fraud and abuse," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.
"This was not the plan Americans asked for or the results they were promised," he said.
Anger and frustration over high government spending and deficits have been leading causes of a wave of public discontent with Washington, and Republicans sought to ride the current.
"One year later, we see plainly that the stimulus was not a well-thought-out plan," 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said on Facebook. "It hasn't revived our economy; instead the debt-ridden package will prove to be a drag on our economy."
Obama used a portion of his speech to accuse Republicans of hypocrisy, saying they have enjoyed its benefits even as they criticized the plan.
"There are those, let's face it, across the aisle who have tried to score political points by attacking what we did, even as many of them show up at ribbon-cutting ceremonies for projects in their districts," Obama said.
He said he recognized that many Americans are not benefiting from the stimulus.
"Millions more are struggling to make ends meet. So it doesn't yet feel like much of a recovery. And I understand that. It's why we're going to continue to do everything in our power to turn this economy around," Obama said.
With Congress now working on a multibillion-dollar jobs bill, Obama warned of the possibility this year of layoffs by state governments as funding from the stimulus runs out.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
As noted in this article, the stimulus bill is a failure. Just think what could have been with $57,000 per household if the individuals actually chose what to do with the money.
Have Obama's federal government weatherize your home for only $57,362 each Top of the Ticket Los Angeles Times
Who could forget the $5 billion in Obama administration stimulus money that was going to rapidly create nearly 90,000 green jobs across the country in these tough economic times and make so many thousands of homes all snuggy and warm and energy-efficient these very snowy days?
Well, a new report due out this morning will show the $5-billion program is so riddled with drafts that so far it's weatherized only about 9,000 homes.
Based on the initial Obama-Biden program promise that it would create 87,000 new jobs its first year, that would be about 10 jobs for each home weatherized so far. Makes for pretty crowded doorways.
ABC News reports that the General Accountability Office will declare today that the Energy Department has fallen woefully behind -- about 98.5% behind -- the 593,000 homes it initially predicted would be weatherized in the Recovery Act's very first, very chilly year.
The Energy Department is run by Steven Chu, like President Obama a Nobel Prize winner. You'll never guess what the federal government blames for the lack of significant progress.
Not duct tape. Not weatherstripping. But that infamous RED tape. In the form of, well, forms.
It seems that the Pelosi-Reid stimulus plan that was so quickly cobbled together and was supposed to immediately pump so much money into the sagging economy last year included an 80-year-old legal provision requiring all federally funded projects to pay a prevailing wage to workers.
But what's a prevailing wage for weatherization, you ask?
So the Energy Department asked the Labor Department, which set out to calculate what a prevailing weatherization wage is in every single one of the more than 3,000 counties across these United States.
There were some other things to figure out. It seems the law also requires some kind of National Trust for Historic Preservation review for most homes before any contracts could be estimated to be negotiated to be signed to be let to be begun. And states like Michigan have two people assigned to such tasks.
So, good luck speeding up that work.
The Energy folks did tell ABC they've so far spent $522 million Recovery Act dollars on the program. Which works out to, let's see, about $57,362 worth of very expensive weatherstripping for each home fixed up so far.
Seems about right for a federal program
Monday, April 19, 2010
YouTube - Ronald Reagan and ObamaCare - Against Socialized Medicine
We can dress it up, re-label it, or disguise it in any manner deemed acceptable; but we are losing freedoms and our representative republic is headed down the path of socialism!
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Barack Obama's first year in office was one long string of gaffes, foreign policy blunders, and domestic disasters strung together in a long, terrible line. Although it's not possible to adequately catalogue every blunder in Obama's first year in something shorter than a book, here are some of the many, many blaring lowlights that really stood out:
1) The stimulus that didn't: The Democrats shoved through a stimulus bill that cost more than the Vietnam and Iraq wars combined. Why? Over and over again, they said "jobs, jobs, jobs." In fact, the Obama Administration said that if the bill passed, they expected it to keep unemployment below 8%. Instead, unemployment hit a 26-year high of 10.2% in November.
2) Pyrrhic "victory" on health care: In one of the most nauseating displays of government "sausage making" in American history, the Democrats have used open bribery to push a wildly unpopular health care bill through both the House and the Senate. The Democrats are willing to trade tax increases, increased premiums, Medicare cuts, government-financed abortions, taxpayer-funded care for illegals, death panels, rationing, and reduced quality of care for a bill they believe will help move America towards socialism. However, this is turning into the Hindenburg of political bills and could very possibly cost the Democrats the House, the Senate, and the White House over the next couple of election cycles unless Scott Brown wins in Massachusetts and helps kill the bill deader than Lenin in the next few weeks.
3) Thanks for the help on the campaign. Enjoy your new company! In what may be the “crookedest” government deal since the Teapot Dome Scandal in the early twenties, Barack Obama broke legally binding contracts and spent more than 50 billion dollars in taxpayer funds to save union jobs at GM and Chrysler. When it was all said and done, the unions, which provides political shock troops for Democrats all across the country, ended up with more than 50% of Chrysler and almost 40% of General Motors. Jack Abramoff, Bernie Madoff, and Charles Ponzi together couldn't have bilked as many Americans out of their money in a hundred years as Barack Obama did with this scam.
4) Obama lets you know what he really thinks about race: Barack Obama has been well served by letting his supporters play the race card for him while he keeps his hands clean. That way, he looks like a good guy, even while his friends and allies scream "racism" at everyone who gets in his way. However, the mask slipped on the Henry Louis Gates case and Americans got to see what Obama really thinks about race.
After admitting that he didn't know all the facts, Obama accused the police of "stupidly" arresting his friend and then went on lecture everyone about the racism that surely had to be involved. It was Obama's most revealing moment on race since he tossed his own grandmother under the bus even as he supported Jeremiah Wright.
5) Book 'em, Danno! The decision to put 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed on trial in New York is simply bizarre. No one in the Obama Administration has been able to give a coherent explanation for why KSM is being tried in New York while other terrorists are facing military tribunals. Why increase the chances of a terrorist attack in New York, give KSM the chance to spew propaganda in the court room, risk the release of sensitive intelligence data, and give a slick lawyer a chance to let Khalid Shaikh Mohammed off via a loophole? This is all doubly true since both Barack Obama and Eric Holder have assured Americans that KSM won't be released, no matter what happens. That should help America's image abroad -- making a big show of putting a terrorist through our criminal justice system and then in essence telling the world it's a sham trial that's about as meaningful as the courtroom proceedings in North Korea or Cuba.
6) This is the most important fight ever! Here's when we give up: Since Obama got into office, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has markedly deteriorated. General Stanley McChrystal gave Obama a plan to help turn things around, and after months of golfing, Obama got around to partially approving it -- along with a timeline, explaining when we were leaving. Just after telling Americans how vital Afghanistan was, not just to America's security but to the world, Obama then told the audience when we'd be starting to pull out, whether we won or not. After it became clear that the timeline had the potential to dramatically undercut support for the war, the administration backpedaled like they were training for the Tour De France, leaving everyone confused about where we really stand.
7) Chestnuts roasting on an open fire, Al-Qaeda nipping at your nose: Isn't it great to know that after all the obtrusive, annoying, and time consuming searches we have to endure at the airports, terrorists can still get on airplanes with explosives? Moreover, despite the fact that our government was given every warning that the Christmas Day Pantsbomber was a threat, not only did they manage to fail to connect the dots, Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano declared that "the system worked" because passengers managed to thwart the terrorist attack. As if that wasn't insulting enough, aggravating, completely ineffective new rules were implemented because of the attack, and after the Nigerian pants bomber was foolishly put into the civilian court system, he immediately stopped talking. Where's Jack Bauer -- or for that matter, Dick Cheney -- when we need some adults to help protect our country?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Here is a recent summary from the "Morning Bell" on the failure of the Obama team to create jobs. He could have stimulated the economy more by simply handing each of the umemployed one large check rather than the unwieldy stimulus program that was an overall failure.
The last paragraph of this article sums it up very nicely. The government has no money of its own. They only get money by taking ours.
On February 11th, President Barack Obama stood on a windy hilltop in front of a dusty construction site in Fairfax County, Virginia, and promised the American people: “Here in Virginia, my plan will create or save almost 100,000 jobs, doing work at sites just like this one.” Standing alongside current Democratic National Committee Chairman and former-Gov. Tim Kaine, the President continued: “Where we’re standing, that could mean hundreds of construction jobs. And the benefits of jobs we create directly will multiply across the economy.” Eleven months later, none of those promised jobs have been “created or saved.” In fact, the Obama administration quietly announced last week that they were dropping the fraudulent “saved or created” terminology altogether.
The failure of Obama’s $787 billion stimulus is particularly acute in Virginia where, as Heritage fellow Ron Utt has documented, despite $695 million in allocated infrastructure funding, only 16% of designated projects had begun. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) even publicly complained about Virginia’s slow transportation spending, writing to Gov. Kaine: “your state ranks last among all states [51 out of 51, including the District of Columbia], based on an analysis of the percentage of Recovery Act highway formula funds put out to bid, under contract and under way.”
But even where infrastructure spending has been spent, the hard evidence shows that there has not been any positive effect on unemployment. According to an Associated Press analysis reviewed by independent economists at five universities, the $20 billion spent nationwide on infrastructure so far “has had no effect on local unemployment rates.” And this was just the most recent embarrassing headline for the White House’s signature economic policy. Since the first reporting deadline in October, newspapers and other media outlets across the country have identified 94,341 fake jobs reported by the Obama administration as jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus. After the Government Accountability Office issued a report finding “significant reporting and processing problems that need to be addressed,” Obama administration spokesman Ed Pound offered this defense of the Obama administration’s jobs numbers: “Who knows, man, who really knows.”
Now Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag issued a little-noticed memo last month ending the “saved or created” metric and instead directing agencies to count only jobs “funded” by stimulus dollars. But as Harvard University labor economist Lawrence Katz tells ProPublica, this is not really an improvement: “I just think it’s a silly exercise.” Instead Katz says a more accurate way to account for the effect of the stimulus is to look at the unemployment numbers put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
That is a great idea. The latest BLS report issued last Friday found that the U.S. economy dropped 85,000 jobs in December, bringing the jobs lost total to 2.7 million since the stimulus was passed and 3.4 million since Obama became President. In contrast, the President’s White House Council of Economic Advisers had promised total employment of at least 138.6 million by 2010. Actual employment as of December was reported to be 130.9 million, leaving the Obama jobs deficit at 7.7 million.
The problem with infrastructure spending as stimulus, and really government spending as stimulus, is that Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. Businesses are telling pollsters that among the biggest reasons they are not creating jobs is the prospect of new tax and regulatory burdens. A better solution to reduce unemployment is to simplify and reduce the barriers to business success.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Fact Checking the White House Fix Health Care Policy
These video clips are short, concise and clearly show how radical this takeover really is and why it is not healthcare reform but rather an ideological paradigm shift in what used to be a representative republic.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Here is a simple visualization to help get our hands around what Obama and the liberal left are trying to say.
As always, their speech is misleading, pure rhetoric and their actions are going to bankrupt our country.
Visualizing Obama's budget cuts. [VIDEO]
Friday, April 9, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Here is a nice summary and perspective from William Tucker on why the Democrats healthcare reform cannot be sustained long term. The American Spectator : Why Healthcare Reform Can't Work
Two weeks ago we smashed the side view mirror on our car and had to take it to the shop. We paid $250 for a replacement.
This week I went to my dermatologist to see if I had developed any more skin cancers (red hair and all that). The doctor took a biopsy on one spot and sent if off to the lab. If it's malignant, I'll have to go back and have a bigger chunk of my cheek removed. The cost of all this? Zero.
This simple comparison illustrates why healthcare "reform," as Congress has just adopted it, will probably bankrupt the country.
As far as auto insurance is concerned, we have it like almost everyone else. It covers major damage. A year ago I was in a fender-bender. The insurance paid a small portion of the repairs. Several years ago, we bought my son a car and -- typically -- he nearly totaled it within a week. The insurance company paid an astounding $8,000 in repairs but our premiums tripled and we spent several years paying the penalty. That's what "underwriting" is about. After one accident you get moved into a higher risk category. It's what you might call a "pre-existing condition."
At the auto shop, the mechanics have high school backgrounds with two or three years of on-the-job training and use basic hydraulic lifts and wrenches. I pay them $250 for parts and an hour of labor. At the doctor's office, the person who serves me has done four years of medical school plus another three or four years of hospital residency and uses sophisticated equipment. The lab that does the biopsy will have the latest technology. Yet because I have a part-time job with a major employer, I receive union "health benefits" that pay for everything. I would be happy to pay $80-100 for my visits to the dermatologist. After all, I pay a plumber $50 just to come to my house and look at my leaking sink. But because politicians like Nancy Pelosi have convinced people that even a $20 co-payment is an "insurance company rip-off," I get my medical services for free.
Not that I am unaware of the dangers of falling out of this system and going uninsured. A few years ago I didn't have coverage and was paying $500 apiece for these minor office procedures.
As John Goodman and Robert Musgrave wrote in their brilliant analysis, Patient Power (written in 1994 and still the best critique around), what we are calling "health insurance" is not insurance at all. It is prepaid medical benefits. Insurance is a way of pooling the risk for major expenses -- the kind you incur when you have an auto accident or suffer a serious illness. Prepaid benefit plans try to cover all medical expenses, no matter how small.
No insurance company could possibly provide auto insurance that paid the bills every time you changed a tire. The premiums would be impossibly expensive and people would abuse the system, running to the auto shop every time they felt they needed new windshield wipers or suffered a dent in their bumper. Likewise, no insurance company offers policies with 100 percent coverage of all medical bills. The premiums would be impossibly expensive and people would run to the doctor every time they had a sniffle or suffered a cut finger.
Instead, prepaid benefits plans were pioneered by the major corporations and their labor unions, plus federal, state and local governments and their labor unions, which are now the majority of union members and one of the principle players in this melodrama. Taking advantage of an IRS ruling that health and retirement benefits could not be taxed as income, major corporations and governments began funneling tax-free dollars to their employees as "greater take-home pay." Instead of income, employees got first-dollar coverage of all medical bills with no co-payments and no deductibles. In other words, medical care was "free." And of course people began to treat it that way. Writing in 1994, Goodman and Musgrave argued that it was all these people flooding into the system with cost-free health benefits that was driving up medical prices.
What corporations, governments and their unions had created was a mini-welfare state. We all know what happens to welfare states. When General Motors went under this year, it was lamenting that every car that came off the line had $1,500 in employee and retiree health benefits on board. When President Clinton tried to "reform" healthcare in the 1990s, one of the central initiatives was that the bloated healthcare commitments made by major corporations would be off-loaded onto the government.
Practically every state and local government in the country has the same unfunded employee pension and health benefits threatening them with bankruptcy. Medicaid is working the same way and now consumes 25 percent of state budgets. And of course the granddaddy of all is Medicare, which now has unfunded liabilities of $90 trillion over the next seventy years and will only be payable if the dollar loses about 80 percent of its value.
So what has Congress decided to do in order to "reform" this system? Instead of getting a grip benefits and substituting a policy of health insurance, the Democrats have decided to extend the same unrealistic benefits to everybody.
Last week in the Wall Street Journal -- where the run-of-the-paper is just as much a cheerleader for the Democrats as the New York Times -- a story ran under the headline, "Consumers Would See Benefits Soon After Enactment." (This was a sidebar to the story, "Pelosi Bids for a Place in House History.") The Journal informed us that once Obamacare passed, three big changes would materialize within six months:
• Insurers wouldn't be allowed to cancel policies just because a person became sick or to place lifetime caps on care.
• New insurance plans would have to pay full cost of certain preventive care and exempt such care from deductibles.
• Children could stay on their parents' insurance policies until their 26th birthday.
The last may help the insurance companies since young people are generally healthier -- except that people probably won't sign up until their children get sick. The first two items, however, are a recipe for insurance company disaster. The first will encourage people to wait until they're sick before buying insurance. The second will encourage extraordinary overuse. No longer do you have to be sick to visit the doctor. You can just go for "preventive" reasons. Preventive care increases overall costs in the system. Once in awhile an individual may catch a disease in an early stage, but hundred others will be checked with no impact. Preventative services are not that costly and would be best paid for by individuals. Universal preventive care will send insurance company costs soaring.
So will the companies will be allowed to raise their rates? Not a chance. While one foot of Obamacare is on the gas pedal, the other is on the brake, putting federal price controls on insurance company premiums. The results will be insurance company bankruptcies. At that point we'll have to have a "public option." There will be no one left selling health insurance.
The only way to avoid this road to bankruptcy for the entire country is to restore individual responsibility in the system. Let the insurance companies go back to selling insurance instead of forcing them to provide prepaid benefits. Allow everyone $3,000 tax-free savings account to pay for their basic medical costs. Then let them buy so-called "catastrophic insurance" -- which is really just ordinary insurance - to cover serious medical expenses. Premiums will be affordable and you won't have to clog the Congressional Record with rules telling insurance companies what to do. Such a system is already at work. It's called "health savings accounts." HSA's work very well in Indiana, where the government gives its employees the $3,000 but still saves money over providing open-ended "benefits."
We've just thrown ourselves into a deep recession through an ill-advised federal effort give everyone a home. Maybe if the Republicans take over next November, we can repeal yesterday's suicide pact and create something that provides near-universal coverage without tearing the medical economy to shreds. Otherwise, be prepared to see the country reeling down the road to bankruptcy.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
In the following clip, Max Baucus doesn’t even try to hide his radical socialist viewpoint of how this entire law is intended to spread the wealth.
YouTube - Max Baucus on Obamacare's hidden agenda - redistribution of wealth
We are seeing a radical transformation of our Representative Republic and our liberties and freedoms are being trampled upon by the Liberal Left.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
We recently had another glimpse of the true ideology of the Democrats. It occurred when Senior Democratic House Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) made some incredible admissions on WJR 760AM, a local Michigan station while discussing the Healthcare takeover.
His answer should come as no surprise, but it is rare that he actually stated what we already know to be a fact; the Democrats want control of the people.
Here is Dingell’s quote: “We’re not ready to be doing it. But let me remind you, this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”
Dingell is admitting openly that the goal of the legislation is to “control the people” and admits that you cannot do it abruptly but it will take time; 4 years according to the passage of the healthcare takeover bill.
Dingell explicitly states that the Democrats need the next four years to prepare the “necessary administrative steps” to bring Obamacare online “to control the people” of America.
Since the legislation is now law, it is time we Americans stand up and fight this takeover and demand the Democrats make full disclosure of what exactly they have planned “to control the people.”
Monday, April 5, 2010
If he were a republican, the media would be relentless on removing him from office.
YouTube - Hank Johnson -- Most rare and special, towering stupidity.
This was an embarrassment to everyone at this hearing and we should be ashamed to have an Admiral subjected to such idiocy. The Admiral should have told the congressman that they would reinforce the anchors that hold the island in place.
The media want to blame his stupidity on his Hepatitis C, but this disease does not cause stupidity. If there is some other medical condition that truly is affecting his ability to think rationally, than he should be declared incompetent and removed from office.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms. This was posted the weekend the bill was passed
With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.
Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”
The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.
1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)
2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).
3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).
4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).
6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))
8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).
9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).
11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))
12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a county where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).
14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)
15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).
16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).
17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)
18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).
19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).
20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).