Saturday, November 07, 2009

I think we know who's the Alpha dog in this relationship....
Ever Wonder.....You know that indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why don't they make the whole plane out of that stuff?!

Friday, November 06, 2009

The Worst Bill Ever

November 5, 2009
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.
In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.

All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.

As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

Embedded income tax costs eliminated with FairTax

Roger Buchholtz, MI FairTax Director, recently wrote to us asking that we focus on another huge problem created by the income tax system - embedded and hidden income tax costs. He’s right; it’s the part of the income tax iceberg that lives dangerously hidden beneath the surface of our economy and our tax structure. Every consumer pays them hidden inside retail prices, wages and benefits are often depressed because of them and American companies are at a severe price disadvantage with foreign competitors because of them. The FairTax eliminates these hidden tax costs and - among other advantages - allows retail prices to drop in their absence.

American consumers typically don’t understand that federal tax costs are added into the price of domestically produced goods and services because these costs are hidden from plain view by “embedding” the costs into retail prices. But as any American business owner knows, income taxes, FICA payroll taxes, and the cost of obeying tax laws is a big part of business operating and production costs. Every employer pays half of each employee’s Social Security and Medicare taxes (FICA), the second highest corporate tax rate in the world and the significant cost of filing tax paperwork and maintaining records. These costs are added all along the production, distribution and retail sales line right up to the consumer.

To some, this just represents business “paying its fair share” and political figures often direct voter scorn toward the business sector claiming that businesses are not carrying enough of the tax burden. But only people pay taxes, not businesses, and such rhetoric disguises the truth of this hidden tax cost. Business taxes are, in reality, always passed along to consumers and/or workers. Business tax costs are commonly paid for by charging consumers more for the product or service, or by depressing employee wages and benefits. Typically, it is a combination of the two strategies that is used to pay required business tax costs.

Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson added up the entire FICA payroll tax cost (the employee and employer share), as well as business income taxes paid and compliance costs, and found that the production costs of domestic goods and services could decrease by approximately 22 percent on average after embedded tax costs are removed. Arduin, Laffer, and Moore, another respected group of economists, estimated production costs could decrease by a minimum of 11.55% if businesses provided employees with gross pay (including income tax withholding and only the employee share of payroll taxes) after enactment of the FairTax.

The other self-defeating consequence of these embedded tax costs is the effect on the “Made in America” label and job creation here in the United States. Foreign producers don’t suffer these costs when selling products or services here. Foreign governments typically forgive such taxes on overseas sales. It leaves American producers with a huge cost disadvantage on both domestic sales the sale of products and services overseas. By eliminating these costs, retail prices will fall under competitive pressures, taxpayers will see the tax cost of our federal government, and American companies will be freed of as much as a 22% producer cost disadvantage that typically translates into higher prices and lower wages and benefits for American workers. By eliminating these costs, more American jobs will be created with more favorable tax treatment for USA-based companies.

The FairTax eliminates embedded tax costs by shifting all such taxes into the open. It means a more honest relationship between the citizen and government and it means that American businesses will no longer have the American tax system working against job creation and competitiveness with foreign producers. Many believe that elimination of these costs will also lead to a resurgence of the American manufacturing base, which has been steadily declining over the most recent decades. It is one more income-tax-produced problem solved by the FairTax, and one more way to make the economy boom once again.

Did You Know?

The Alternative Minimum Tax was created in 1969 to capture taxes from 155 families who were so rich and so skilled at using the many arcane provisions of the tax code that they paid little or no income taxes. But because Congress erred and failed to index the provision for inflation, as many as twenty-three to twenty-five million middle-class taxpayers have technically already lost eligibility for deductions for children, real estate, and state taxes, as well as other exemptions and deductions. Oops! Congress passes a legislative “patch” each year to keep the AMT from going into effect but still counts the projected income from this growing Congressional error against federal spending.
More Boortz: A lesson learned from Old Butch the Rooster

John was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called 'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs. He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced.

This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone so he could tell from a distance which rooster was performing. Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.

John's favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover. To John's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.

John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but, they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention. Vote carefully next time, the bells are not always audible.
FairTax on Twitter

It's FairTax Friday - look at your paystub!

Fairtax makes our exports more competitive overseas, it lowers our balance of trade deficit & increases employment at home.

Thursday, November 05, 2009

by Ann Coulter
Posted 11/04/2009 ET
Updated 11/04/2009 ET

-- MSNBC, Aug. 31, 2009, Keith Olbermann on Robert F. McDonnell, Republican candidate for governor of Virginia:

"In (McDonnell's master's thesis), he described women having jobs as detrimental to the family, called legalized use of contraception illogical, pushed to make divorce more difficult, and insisted government should favor married couples over, quote, 'cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.' Wow. When did he write this? 1875? No, 1989. Wow, 1989.

"Goodbye, Mr. McDonnell."

-- MSNBC, Sept. 22, 2009, Rachel Maddow also on McDonnell:

"And here's where the conservative movement and the Republican establishment smash into each other like bumper cars without bumpers. Here's where Republican electoral chances stop being separate from the wild-eyed excesses of the conservative movement.

"Part of watching Republicans try to return to power is watching ... the conservative movement eat the Republican Party, eat their electoral chances over and over and over again."

On election night, conservatives-eating-Republicans resulted in an 18-point landslide for McDonnell, who beat his Democratic opponent 59 percent to 41 percent -- winning two-thirds of all independent voters and ending the Democrats' eight-year reign in the Virginia governor's office.

Republicans swept all statewide offices for the first time in 12 years, winning the races for lieutenant governor and attorney general, as well as assembly seats, garbage inspector, dog catcher and anything else Virginians could vote for.

To paraphrase a pompous blowhard: Goodbye, Mr. Democrat.

And that's not the most exciting news from election night! Astoundingly, Jon Corzine, the incumbent governor of heavily Democratic New Jersey -- a state that Barack Obama won by 16 points just a year ago -- lost by 5 points.

At 49 percent for Republican Chris Christie versus 44 percent for Corzine, the election wasn't even close enough to be stolen by ACORN. (Although Corzine did extremely well among underaged Salvadoran prostitutes living in government housing.)

The biggest winner election night was pollster Scott Rasmussen, who -- once again -- produced the most accurate poll results. New York Times poll: Corzine 40, Christie 37; Quinnipiac poll: Corzine 43, Christie 38; Rasmussen poll: Christie 46, Corzine 43.

The biggest loser was President Obama, who campaigned tirelessly for Corzine, even giving up golf on several occasions and skipping a quarter-million-dollar "date night" with Michelle to stump for the Democrat.

Just two days before the election, Obama was at a rally in New Jersey assuring voters that Corzine was "one of the best partners I have in the White House. We work together. ... Jon Corzine helped get this done."

Except the problem is that voting for Obama a year ago was a fashion statement, much like it was once a fad to buy Beanie Babies, pet rocks and Cabbage Patch Kids. But instead of ending up with a ridiculous dust-collector at the bottom of your closet, the Obama fad leaves you with higher taxes, a reduced retirement fund, no job and a one-year wait for an MRI.

That is why Corzine's defeat sounded the death knell for national health care.

The good news: Next time Corzine is in a major car accident after speeding on the New Jersey Turnpike, he'll be able to see a doctor right away.

The media will try to rescue health care by talking about nothing but the 23rd district of New York, where the Democrat won Tuesday night. Congratulations, Democrats -- you won a congressional seat in New York! Next up: A Catholic elected pope!

Far from an upset, the Democrats' winning the 23rd district was a long-term plan of the Obama White House. That's why Obama made John McHugh, the moderate Republican congressman representing the 23rd district, his Secretary of the Army earlier this year. The Democrats thought McHugh's seat would be easy pickings.

Only in the last week has everyone acted as if a Democratic victory in the 23rd district would be a shocking surprise -- an upset victory caused by puritanical Republicans staging inquisitions against "mainstream" Republican candidates like Dede Scozzafava, the designated "Republican" candidate in the special election.

This is preposterous -- there was absolutely nothing Republican about Scozzafava. As a supporter of partial-birth abortion, card-check union schemes and massive government spending programs, she was less Republican than John McCain.

Even Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos called Scozzafava the most liberal candidate in the race -- which may explain why she was the choice of George Soros' Working Families Party and why she promptly endorsed the Democrat after withdrawing from the race last weekend.

Conservative opposition to Scozzafava hardly suggests that they plan to impose litmus tests on every Republican candidate in the 2010 elections.

Speaking of litmus tests, on MSNBC recently, liberal blogger Jane Hamsher said of the possibility that a blue dog Democrat would oppose national health care: "I dare Blanche Lincoln -- I dare Blanche Lincoln to join a filibuster. She'll draw primary opponents so fast it would make your head spin."

While I'm sure an out-of-touch liberal blogger from Hollywood knows more about Arkansas than an elected senator from that state, Hamsher's threat sounds more like an intra-party civil war than conservatives opposing a George Soros-supported Republican candidate in a New York congressional race.

Not only do conservatives not pick insane fights -- such as staging a 2006 primary fight against a recent vice presidential candidate because he supported the war in Iraq -- but conservatives are more popular than Republicans.

By contrast, liberals are less popular than Democrats. When conservatives take control of the Republican Party, Republicans win. When liberals take control of the Democratic Party, Democrats end up out of power for eight to 12 years.
By Neal Boortz @ November 4, 2009 8:40 AM

So the Republicans have come up with a 230-page healthcare alternative. It took the Democrats 1,990 pages. Wonder why it took so much more. Could it be perhaps because the Democrat plan grossly expands the federal government and bureaucracy?

What does the Republican alternative include? Glad you asked. Some of the highlights are:
  • Increasing incentives for people to use health savings accounts
  • Capping non-economic awards in medical malpractices cases
  • Incentives for states to drive down premium costs
  • Allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines
What does the Republican plan NOT include?
  • No employer mandate
  • No individual health insurance mandate
  • It doesn't require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions
  • Probably some abortion stuff that I could care less about
As the Republicans introduced their bill the Democrats were passing around a binder with a cover page reading "Republican Health Care Plan." Inside you would only find blank pages. Very cute ... the Republicans introduce a 233 page plan, and the Democrat Socialist Party refuses to acknowledge its very existence.

There is, though, something wrong with the GOP bill. They posted it online in a non-searchable format. This is particularly vexing to reporters like Jamie Dupree. If you follow him on Twitter [@jamiedupree] you can share his pain. There is, as I see it, only one reason to post your legislation in this manner ... and that's to make it more difficult for snoopy reporters and voters to get into that bill and look for specific little goodies. We expect this from Democrats. Republicans need to correct this.

So we had elections this week. Most Americans probably didn't even know about 'em. They are too busy managing their fantasy football leagues. But these elections do matter. Two states that had Democrat governors now have elected Republican governors – Virginia and New Jersey. Might not be a big deal to people outside of those states, but what do these elections mean for Barack Obama? Remember that it was one year ago that this nation was engaged in an act of mass suicide. It was a Buffalo Jump election. You like that? A Buffalo Jump election. Let me explain.

Ever heard of a place called Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump? Okay, well here is the deal. How did our wonderful Native Americans hunt buffalo? They didn't ride, bare-backed, bow-and-arrow in hand, ready to nail a buffalo. That's not how it was done. Instead … they had Buffalo Jumps. They would find a cliff and then send out a buncha Indians on horseback, and they would herd the buffalo and cause them to stampede. And where would they send the buffalo? Right over the cliff. Some would die. Others would be wounded. But after they ran them over the cliff, they would go down there and finish them off.

Last year was a Buffalo Jump election. The media got on their little media ponies and started herding voters and they herded them right over the cliff. It was like mass suicide. That's what this country experienced one year ago.

But the ballot box still works. But 2010 could be the last chance to save this Republic.

Know the Difference between

A Cold & Swine Flu Symptoms



Swine Flu


Fever is rare with a cold.

Fever is usually present with the flu in up to 80% of all flu cases. A temperature of 100F or higher for 3 to 4 days is associated with the flu.


A hacking, productive (mucus- producing) cough is often present with a cold.

A nonproductive (non-mucus producing) cough is usually present with the flu (sometimes referred to as dry cough ).


Slight body aches and pains can be part of a cold.

Severe aches and pains are common with the flu.

Stuffy Nose

Stuffy nose is commonly present with a cold and typically resolves spontaneously within a week.

Stuffy nose is not commonly present with the flu.


Chills are uncommon with a cold.

60% of people who have the flu experience chills.


Tiredness is fairly mild with a cold.

Tiredness is moderate to severe with the flu.


Sneezing is commonly present with a cold.

Sneezing is not common with the flu.

Sudden Symptoms

Cold symptoms tend to develop over a few days.

The flu has a rapid onset within 3-6 hours. The flu hits hard and includes sudden symptoms like high fever, aches and pains.


A headache is fairly uncommon with a cold.

A headache is very common with the flu, present in 80% of flu cases.

Sore Throat

Sore throat is commonly present with a cold.

Sore throat is not commonly present with the flu..

Chest Discomfort

Chest discomfort is mild to moderate with a cold.

Chest discomfort is often severe with the flu.

Ever Wonder....Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Swine Flu Update

What is the difference between Bird Flu and Swine Flu?
For bird flu you need tweetment and for swine flu you need oinkment

Swine Flu Paranoia

by Ann Coulter (more by this author)
Posted 09/09/2009 ET
Updated 09/09/2009 ET

(12) Only national health care can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job" -- as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.

This is obviously a matter of great importance to all Americans, because, with Obama's economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year's end.

The only reason you can't keep -- or often obtain -- health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of ... government intrusion into the free market.

You will notice that if you move or lose your job, you can obtain car and home insurance, hairdressers, baby sitters, dog walkers, computer technicians, cars, houses, food and every other product and service not heavily regulated by the government. (Although it does become a bit harder to obtain free office supplies.)

Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don't get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.

Meanwhile, state governments must approve the insurers allowed to operate in their states, while mandating a list of services -- i.e. every "medical" service with a powerful lobby -- which is why Joe and Ruth Zelinsky, both 88, of Paterson, N.J., are both covered in case either one of them ever needs a boob job.

If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as "allowing the free market to operate."

Plus, think of all the paper a one-page bill would save! Don't Democrats care about saving the planet anymore? Go green!

(13) The "public option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.

Why does the government get to decide when the "trigger" has been met, allowing it to do something terrible to us? Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is -- and I believe the historical record is clear on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument simply by invoking "triggers"?

Why not have a "trigger" allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers -- but only when triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab and shrinks?

Thinking more broadly, how about triggers for paying taxes? Under my "public option" plan, citizens would not have to pay taxes until a trigger kicks in. For example, 95 percent of the Department of Education's output is useful, or -- in the spirit of compromise -- at least not actively pernicious.

Also, I think we need triggers for taking over our neighbors' houses. If they don't keep up 95 percent of their lawn -- on the basis of our lawn commission's calculations -- we get to move in. As with Obama's public option trigger, we (in the role of "government") pay nothing. All expenses with the house would continue to be paid by the neighbor (playing "taxpayer").

To make our housing "public option" even more analogous to Obama's health care "public option," we'll have surly government employees bossing around the neighbors after we evict them and a Web site for people to report any negative comments the neighbors make about us.

Another great trigger idea: We get to pull Keith Olbermann's hair to see if it's a toupee -- but only when triggered by his laughably claiming to have gone to an Ivy League university, rather than the bovine management school he actually attended.

(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.

This appeared in an earlier installment of "Liberal Lies About Health Care," but I keep seeing Democrats like Howard Dean and Rep. Jan Schakowsky on TV angrily shouting that these are despicable lies -- which, in itself, constitutes proof that it's all true.

Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion? (Also, why is Planned Parenthood collecting petition signatures in Manhattan -- where they think they have no reason to be sneaky -- in support of national health care?)

On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.

On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman -- a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one -- originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did -- as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.

If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?

Ever Wonder......Why do they sterilize the needle for lethal injections?

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Fox Hunting

I received this in email and I have to agree! This insanity has to stop!! Where is Congress?? Where is Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha?

While I always agree that hunting is an ethical God given right, I think that I would have to agree with the author on this one... fox hunting in Colorado should be banned!

Please help ban fox hunting in Colorado ~


Those people who are swayed... the propaganda of the US private health insurance corporations and the corporate mass media should take a few minutes to consider this:

Nearly 50 million Americans do not have health insurance, while another 25 million are under insured. (KoTK: this number seems to be subjective, depending on what side of the insurance fence you're on. US News, NCHC, and CNN to name a few, give very different numbers. Remember the old adage, "figures don't lie, but liars can figure".)

The amount people pay for health insurance increased 30 percent from 2001 to 2005, while income for the same period of time only increased 3 percent, as reported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The typical family health insurance plan costs $12,000 a year or more.

Health care expenditures in the United States exceed $2 trillion a year. In comparison, the federal budget is $3 trillion a year. (KoTK: my two second research shows the 2009 budget is $12 trillion and estimates for 2010 is $14 trillion - just suggesting that the author of this piece may have gotten his numbers from unreliable sources)

In a study completed by the Commonwealth Fund, 45 percent of the adults in the survey reported that they had a hard time paying their bills, even with health insurance, and had been contacted by a collection agency or had to change their way of life in an effort to pay their medical bills.

Approximately 50 percent of personal bankruptcies are due to medical expenses (a Harvard study points to 60%, others may something else)

According to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 28 percent of middle income families (annual family income between $30,000 and $75,000) stated that they were currently having a serious problem paying for health care or health insurance. (ed: I don't know why these families are having problems; I doubt that it's simply the cost of living - perhaps trying to live up to instead of within their income? Just a thought)

In terms of costs the US are the highest in the O.E.C.D. (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (KoTK: this is apparently a European organization and the correct spelling in the title is 'Organisation'). In terms of health outcomes, life expectancy and infant mortality the US ranks 39 in the O.E.C.D., on par with Cuba.

But the world's most profitable for the US health insurance industry.

Go figure

From email

Note: Kitten (KoTK) supplied the links in this post. The italics are the original email. KoTK's comments are in regular font. The moral of the story: don't be swayed by anything but your own research.


I'm not swayed by the corporate stance on health care.

US health care is reputed to be the best in the world. If we change our health care to what, say, Europe has, in my opinion, we'd be lowering our ability to provide the level of health care that the US now provided.

People in other countries come to the US for treatment that they can't get elsewhere. Yes, it's also true that Americans go to other countries for alternative health care. While I have no real data, those I've heard of going to other countries either die or do not improve. It could be because they are beyond the abilities of the treatment they seek to improve their condition. I honestly don't know. But I do know that I've heard of few (in fact, none that I can think of) people who go to other countries for treatment and improve or cure the condition.

Believe me, I am sympathetic to the un- or under- insured, and in favor of providing some kind of health care for them. But, I also don't want to see our health care disintegrate to that of a second or third rate country. I'm worried that is exactly what will happen if our health care system is modeled on the European system.

Since I've been working for my current employer (27 years), my employer has paid for my health insurance 100%. When my husband was living, he was covered under my insurance as a dependent, but I had to pay for his insurance through mandatory payroll deduction. Every year, his portion of the insurance went up as well as co-pays.

We were just informed that in January that we employees will be paying $25 every payday for our insurance. I have very good insurance (except for dental and vision as I've said) and $25 is a drop in the bucket compared to what many people pay (and definitely less than the dependent costs). I am not complaining one bit that I have to pay something for my insurance now.

The uninsured and the under-insured need something, there's no doubt about that. I believe that had my husband had insurance in his younger days, his later health issues might have been avoided or at least lessened to a degree where he had a better quality of life.

How about this: a basic health care account for all American who are uninsured. Another tier where the under-insured can supplement what they do have. For example, I have good health insurance through my employer, but the dental and vision parts could stand improvement. Maybe someone else needs to supplement, say, prescription benefits.

I think Medicare or Medicaid would be good place to start. The programs are already in place; a "tweaking" if you will, or maybe a complete overhaul to implement service to all Americans, would be necessary, but why start a whole new program when something already exists that does something similar now? Those without insurance are in, let's say, the Medicaid system and stay there until they are insured under an employer's insurance plan or purchase their own health insurance. A secondary plan could augment whatever insurance plan they have, but only if the person chooses to augment.