TheCypressTimes : SARAH PALIN: LIVING IN BARACK OBAMA'S HEAD RENT FREE: "Tuesday night the plans of Barack Obama and the democrat/communist party took some severe blows in New Jersey and Virginia. A strong message was sent by the American people that we are not pleased with Obama’s perverted vision for America. That he and his democrat/communist party are on the wrong track.
So who is the focus of White House greaseball David Axelrod? Sarah Palin!
That’s right, Palin; the so-called supposed insignificant, washed up “quitter.” I mean that’s what the democrat/communists and their lap dogs in the media shout all day every day. For such an insignificant woman, Sarah sure does take up an incredible amount of the White House and the media’s air time on a daily basis!
Axelrod is proclaiming the White House is 2-0 against Sarah Palin after Tuesday’s elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York’s 23rd congressional district.
Now of course, they count the presidential loss by John McCain in this deal.
Looking back, the very second Sarah Palin stepped onto the national stage Barack Obama and the democrat/communist party ceased to care about beating John McCain and went into full panic mode, followed by hyper attack mode, a mode that they are still in to this day!
The amount of gymnastics Obama and his team of Chicago street thugs and his Alaska Mafia have performed while trying to stop Sarah is nothing short of extraordinary. They have had their billionaire buddies fund schemes, they’ve coordinated with 3rd rate hate bloggers and so on. They’ve put the full force of the White House as well as their compliant media lackeys up against this supposedly insignificant, washed up moose hunter from Wasilla.
To borrow from Shakespeare, me thinks they doth protest too much!
Frankly, in politics, if your opponent is committing suicide you know the best thing to do is get out of their way and let them have at it. You certainly don’t break out in a cold sweat at the mere mention of her name!
If Sarah Palin was such a “disaster” these people would be promoting her, giving her soft ball interviews, and doing absolutely everything they could to make absolutely sure she was the GOP candidate in 2012."
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Betsy McCaughey: What the Pelosi Health Care Bill Really Says - WSJ.com
Betsy McCaughey: What the Pelosi Health Care Bill Really Says - WSJ.com: "The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a 'qualified plan.' If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a 'grace period' to switch you to a 'qualified plan,' meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a 'qualified plan' covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later."
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a 'qualified plan.' If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a 'grace period' to switch you to a 'qualified plan,' meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a 'qualified plan' covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later."
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
Investors.com - Misconceptions That Mar Medical Care
Investors.com - Misconceptions That Mar Medical Care: "A number of confusions plague discussions of the economics of medical care.
A confusion between prices and costs has allowed politicians in various countries to be able to claim to be able to bring down the cost of health care, when in fact they only bring down the individual patient's out-of-pocket costs paid to doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies.
The costs themselves are not reduced in the slightest when additional money to pay for these costs is collected in taxes or insurance premiums and routed through either government or private bureaucracies. Since these bureaucracies and the people who work in them are not free, they add to the cost of providing medical treatment.
Most proposals to bring down the cost of medical care pay little or no attention to the actual cost of creating pharmaceutical drugs, training medical students, or building and equipping hospitals.
To the extent that the government imposes some form of price control by refusing to pay doctors, hospitals or pharmaceutical companies as much as they would receive through supply and demand in a free market, that does not lower the costs either.
It simply means that the government refuses to pay all those costs — and such refusals to pay costs have a centuries-old track record of leading to a reduction in the amount supplied, whether what has been subject to price controls has been housing, gasoline, food or other goods and services.
Medical treatment has been no exception. The reduction in the supply of doctors, hospitals or pharmaceutical drugs may be quantitative, qualitative or both."
A confusion between prices and costs has allowed politicians in various countries to be able to claim to be able to bring down the cost of health care, when in fact they only bring down the individual patient's out-of-pocket costs paid to doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies.
The costs themselves are not reduced in the slightest when additional money to pay for these costs is collected in taxes or insurance premiums and routed through either government or private bureaucracies. Since these bureaucracies and the people who work in them are not free, they add to the cost of providing medical treatment.
Most proposals to bring down the cost of medical care pay little or no attention to the actual cost of creating pharmaceutical drugs, training medical students, or building and equipping hospitals.
To the extent that the government imposes some form of price control by refusing to pay doctors, hospitals or pharmaceutical companies as much as they would receive through supply and demand in a free market, that does not lower the costs either.
It simply means that the government refuses to pay all those costs — and such refusals to pay costs have a centuries-old track record of leading to a reduction in the amount supplied, whether what has been subject to price controls has been housing, gasoline, food or other goods and services.
Medical treatment has been no exception. The reduction in the supply of doctors, hospitals or pharmaceutical drugs may be quantitative, qualitative or both."
Big Government » Blog Archive » Committee Confirms: Comply With Pelosi-Care Or Go To Jail
Big Government » Blog Archive » Committee Confirms: Comply With Pelosi-Care Or Go To Jail: "Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
n response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
- – - – - – - – - -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
- – - – - – - – - -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016."
n response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
- – - – - – - – - -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
- – - – - – - – - -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016."
CNSNews.com - McCain Says Health Care Bill Would Face Constitutional Challenge
CNSNews.com - McCain Says Health Care Bill Would Face Constitutional Challenge: "(Washington, D.C.) -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) predicted on Thursday that there will be a constitutional challenge to the provision in the health care bill under consideration in Congress that would require all Americans to buy health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans purchase any good or service.
When asked by CNSNews.com on Thursday where in the Constitution is Congress given the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance, McCain said, “That is an excellent question and I’m sure that if they pass health care legislation, I think there would be a challenge.”"
When asked by CNSNews.com on Thursday where in the Constitution is Congress given the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance, McCain said, “That is an excellent question and I’m sure that if they pass health care legislation, I think there would be a challenge.”"
The New Media Journal | Healthcare: Who Are the Know-Nothings? by AJ DiCintio
The New Media Journal | Healthcare: Who Are the Know-Nothings? by AJ DiCintio: "As Tuesday’s vote revealed, Americans are strongly devoted to individualism, one happy aspect of which is that they are possessed of an abhorrence to being told what to think, a truth that explains why people are drawing their own conclusions regarding this question:
Which Americans are behaving with anti-intellectual, hateful ignorance in the debate regarding the Obama/Pelosi/Reid healthcare bills making their way through Congress?
To answer that question, common sense folks begin by stipulating some of what is currently known about the bills, for example —
The final version will be advertised as costing $1 trillion over the next decade. However, the real cost is certain to be shockingly greater for at least two reasons.
First, Congress has never come within a million miles of correctly estimating the actual cost of any of its healthcare plans.
Second, to insure that cost estimates will be low-balled by the CBO, Democrats have put in a fiscal fix that initiates taxes for Obamacare in 2010 but waits until 2013 (conveniently one year after the Election of 2012) to gradually implement the plan.
How to pay for a program that affects 16% of the nation’s economy?
Well, Democrats claim they’ll get $400 billion from Medicare — without ever explaining to seniors and the rest of the nation how they’ll get that kind of money without reducing services, cutting services, or increasing Medicare premiums.
Democrats also tell us they’ll raise another $400 billion by increasing taxes on the rich as much as 30%, taxes that, like the Alternative Minimum Tax, will grow with inflation every year.
But a tax on the rich has never brought in the revenue projected."
Which Americans are behaving with anti-intellectual, hateful ignorance in the debate regarding the Obama/Pelosi/Reid healthcare bills making their way through Congress?
To answer that question, common sense folks begin by stipulating some of what is currently known about the bills, for example —
The final version will be advertised as costing $1 trillion over the next decade. However, the real cost is certain to be shockingly greater for at least two reasons.
First, Congress has never come within a million miles of correctly estimating the actual cost of any of its healthcare plans.
Second, to insure that cost estimates will be low-balled by the CBO, Democrats have put in a fiscal fix that initiates taxes for Obamacare in 2010 but waits until 2013 (conveniently one year after the Election of 2012) to gradually implement the plan.
How to pay for a program that affects 16% of the nation’s economy?
Well, Democrats claim they’ll get $400 billion from Medicare — without ever explaining to seniors and the rest of the nation how they’ll get that kind of money without reducing services, cutting services, or increasing Medicare premiums.
Democrats also tell us they’ll raise another $400 billion by increasing taxes on the rich as much as 30%, taxes that, like the Alternative Minimum Tax, will grow with inflation every year.
But a tax on the rich has never brought in the revenue projected."
Not all Dem governors for health reform - Washington Times
Not all Dem governors for health reform - Washington Times: "When the nation's 28 Democratic governors were asked to send a letter to congressional leaders last month expressing their support for health care reform, seven refused to sign the letter and even some who did complained that the pending reform plans could hit them with budget-busting expenses.
The big concern among the holdouts is that the health care overhaul will leave them on the hook to pay for expansions in Medicaid programs for the poor while Washington reaps the political credit.
Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, one of those who declined to sign the letter, has been perhaps the party's sharpest critic in the funding debate, calling the potential expansion of Medicaid in health care reform 'the mother of all unfunded mandates.'
'We can't print money. We can't borrow money. A lot of staffers in Congress really don't understand this idea of a balanced budget,' Mr. Bredesen, a former HMO executive, told reporters in September.
Costs are also worrying moderate Democrats in the House, where party leaders Wednesday pushed for a quick debate and vote on the $1.2 trillion measure as soon as Saturday. Democrats were buoyed by reports that the giant seniors lobby AARP would endorse their bill Thursday.
The Senate remains a tougher call, with Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, hinting this week that Congress may miss President Obama's deadline for passage of a bill by the end of the year."
The big concern among the holdouts is that the health care overhaul will leave them on the hook to pay for expansions in Medicaid programs for the poor while Washington reaps the political credit.
Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, one of those who declined to sign the letter, has been perhaps the party's sharpest critic in the funding debate, calling the potential expansion of Medicaid in health care reform 'the mother of all unfunded mandates.'
'We can't print money. We can't borrow money. A lot of staffers in Congress really don't understand this idea of a balanced budget,' Mr. Bredesen, a former HMO executive, told reporters in September.
Costs are also worrying moderate Democrats in the House, where party leaders Wednesday pushed for a quick debate and vote on the $1.2 trillion measure as soon as Saturday. Democrats were buoyed by reports that the giant seniors lobby AARP would endorse their bill Thursday.
The Senate remains a tougher call, with Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, hinting this week that Congress may miss President Obama's deadline for passage of a bill by the end of the year."
Cash Crunch, Press Silence: As ObamaCare Advances In Congress, Uncle Sam's Collections Continue Steep Drop | NewsBusters.org
Cash Crunch, Press Silence: As ObamaCare Advances In Congress, Uncle Sam's Collections Continue Steep Drop | NewsBusters.org: "The August Congressional Budget Office budget forecast for the fiscal year that began last month says that Uncle Sam will take in $2.264 trillion from October 2009 through September 2010. That's an increase of 7.6% over fiscal 2009's intake of $2.105 trillion.
Though it won't be official until Tim Geithner's crew releases its Monthly Treasury Statement next week, it's virtually certain that the government's collections will open the year in a deep hole compared to last year, and probably well behind what CBO expects.
Take a look at this compilation of key items from October's final Daily Treasury Statement, compared to the actual results from October 2008 and 2007:"
Though it won't be official until Tim Geithner's crew releases its Monthly Treasury Statement next week, it's virtually certain that the government's collections will open the year in a deep hole compared to last year, and probably well behind what CBO expects.
Take a look at this compilation of key items from October's final Daily Treasury Statement, compared to the actual results from October 2008 and 2007:"
Health-Care Bill Doesn't Index for Inflation; Hits Young and Rising Middle Class Hard - WSJ.com
Health-Care Bill Doesn't Index for Inflation; Hits Young and Rising Middle Class Hard - WSJ.com: "All of those twentysomethings who voted for Barack Obama last year are about to experience the change they haven't been waiting for: the return of income tax bracket creep. Buried in Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill is a provision that will partially repeal tax indexing for inflation, meaning that as their earnings rise over a lifetime these youngsters can look forward to paying higher rates even if their income gains aren't real.
In order to raise enough money to make their plan look like it won't add to the deficit, House Democrats have deliberately not indexed two main tax features of their plan: the $500,000 threshold for the 5.4-percentage-point income tax surcharge; and the payroll level at which small businesses must pay a new 8% tax penalty for not offering health insurance.
This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers every year without having to legislate tax increases. The negative effects of failing to index compound over time, yielding a revenue windfall for government as the years go on. The House tax surcharge is estimated to raise $460.5 billion over 10 years, but only $30.9 billion in 2011, rising to $68.4 billion in 2019, according to the Joint Tax Committee."
In order to raise enough money to make their plan look like it won't add to the deficit, House Democrats have deliberately not indexed two main tax features of their plan: the $500,000 threshold for the 5.4-percentage-point income tax surcharge; and the payroll level at which small businesses must pay a new 8% tax penalty for not offering health insurance.
This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers every year without having to legislate tax increases. The negative effects of failing to index compound over time, yielding a revenue windfall for government as the years go on. The House tax surcharge is estimated to raise $460.5 billion over 10 years, but only $30.9 billion in 2011, rising to $68.4 billion in 2019, according to the Joint Tax Committee."
House Committee on Ways & Means - Republican
House Committee on Ways & Means - Republican: "Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
- - - - - - - - - -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
- - - - - - - - - -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016."
In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
- - - - - - - - - -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
- - - - - - - - - -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016."
Enemy of the State—Michelle Bachmann? Meltdown With Keith Olbermann Part 15 « NewsReal Blog
Enemy of the State—Michelle Bachmann? Meltdown With Keith Olbermann Part 15 « NewsReal Blog
On the night of the Fort Hood massacre, Keith Olbermann was worked up. Emotional, vein trobbing, voice trembling in fury worked up. The object of his wrath? Major Hasan who walked through an Army base gunning down unarmed Americans?
No, it takes Congresswoman Michelle Bachman to get him that worked up.
Here’s how Keith began his first segment as every other network was covering the events at Fort Hood:
OLBERMANN: An elected Republican official today is leading a protest on the west steps of the Capitol that compared health care reform to Nazi death camps and encouraged mindless harassment of and possibly violence against the government. Not tea baggers anymore, not demagogic commentators, an actual congresswoman inciting a hateful rebellion against the rule of law and order. Her name is Michele Bachmann.
Rebellion? Really Keith? Encouragement to call one’s Representative? That’s right Thomas Jefferson said every now and again the tree of liberty must be watered with the tears of overworked Congressional phone staff.
Well, a sign some yahoo who knew he could get on MSNBC if he carried it made the odious Dachau comparison, anyway. We don’t know if he was another LaRouchie, or even someone there to make everyone else look bad. Of course, no quote from any Republican Congressperson (while some were pretty lame) made any such assertion, but hey, there was sign!
Mindless harassment? Go visit your Member of Congress and register your protest. Why that’s pretty close to anarchy! Call out the well-regulated militia!
OLBERMANN: Our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN: As if that were not bad enough, Ms. Bachmann today joined by the House minority leader as well as countless other GOP representatives. This orgy of veiled threat and not so veiled racism of white power minority rule now fully the province of the Republican Party. Welcome to the coup!
What’s next, a call for a reinstatement of the Alien and Sedition Acts?
If the racism wasn’t so thinly veiled, then you should have some proof of it, right Keith? Keith? We’re waiting…
AARP and AMA Throw their Members Under the Bus « NewsReal Blog
AARP and AMA Throw their Members Under the Bus « NewsReal Blog: "On Thursday, President Barack Obama took time to gloat to reporters in the White House Briefing Room about the endorsements given by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), and the American Medical Association (AMA), for his proposed socialization of the country’s health care system.
Amy Goodman’s Marxist mouthpiece Democracy Now! network also took a moment to report on the President’s dynamic achievement, while simultaneously contrasting it with an anti-health care rally led by angry right-wingers:
Right-Wing Groups Protest Healthcare Reform
In advance of the vote, thousands of right-wing activists gathered on Capitol Hill Thursday to rally against the proposed healthcare bill. With chants of “kill the bill,” some demonstrators carried signs comparing the measure to the Nazi Holocaust and President Obama to Chairman Mao (Zedong).
Obama Hails AARP, AMA Endorsements
The rally came as the American Association of Retired Persons, the nation’s largest retiree advocacy group, announced its endorsement of the healthcare bill. The move coincided with a similar announcement from the American Medical Association to endorse the bill if it alters rules on doctor payments under Medicare. At the White House, President Obama hailed the endorsements as a major step.
President Obama: “We are closer to passing this reform than ever before. And now that the doctors and medical professionals of America are standing with us, now that the organizations charged with looking out for the interests of seniors are standing with us, we are even closer.
How’s that for balanced reporting?
Now, in order to do justice to the main focus of Goodman’s report (the purpose of which was to highlight the AARP and AMA endorsements), we are forced, once again, to reveal the rest of the story- which Democracy Now! chose to conveniently leave out.
In the case of the AMA, what was left out isof crucial importance; namely, the fact that the AMA never put their endorsement to a vote. In fact, there is now a raging backlash going on within the ranks of the AMA over the unilateral decision of its trustees. The AMA endorsement has triggered a revolt by some members who want the endorsement withdrawn. In fact, on Monday, delegates will vote on a resolution offered by those members that, if approved, will withdraw the AMA’s endorsement of the bill.
Moving on to the AARP, whose support Obama called “no small endorsement,” something stinks in every nostril. Obama continued his self-serving pontification:"
Amy Goodman’s Marxist mouthpiece Democracy Now! network also took a moment to report on the President’s dynamic achievement, while simultaneously contrasting it with an anti-health care rally led by angry right-wingers:
Right-Wing Groups Protest Healthcare Reform
In advance of the vote, thousands of right-wing activists gathered on Capitol Hill Thursday to rally against the proposed healthcare bill. With chants of “kill the bill,” some demonstrators carried signs comparing the measure to the Nazi Holocaust and President Obama to Chairman Mao (Zedong).
Obama Hails AARP, AMA Endorsements
The rally came as the American Association of Retired Persons, the nation’s largest retiree advocacy group, announced its endorsement of the healthcare bill. The move coincided with a similar announcement from the American Medical Association to endorse the bill if it alters rules on doctor payments under Medicare. At the White House, President Obama hailed the endorsements as a major step.
President Obama: “We are closer to passing this reform than ever before. And now that the doctors and medical professionals of America are standing with us, now that the organizations charged with looking out for the interests of seniors are standing with us, we are even closer.
How’s that for balanced reporting?
Now, in order to do justice to the main focus of Goodman’s report (the purpose of which was to highlight the AARP and AMA endorsements), we are forced, once again, to reveal the rest of the story- which Democracy Now! chose to conveniently leave out.
In the case of the AMA, what was left out isof crucial importance; namely, the fact that the AMA never put their endorsement to a vote. In fact, there is now a raging backlash going on within the ranks of the AMA over the unilateral decision of its trustees. The AMA endorsement has triggered a revolt by some members who want the endorsement withdrawn. In fact, on Monday, delegates will vote on a resolution offered by those members that, if approved, will withdraw the AMA’s endorsement of the bill.
Moving on to the AARP, whose support Obama called “no small endorsement,” something stinks in every nostril. Obama continued his self-serving pontification:"
Educating the Left: Here Are Some Real Hate Signs « NewsReal Blog
Educating the Left: Here Are Some Real Hate Signs « NewsReal Blog
This is racism, huh?
Before Keith Olbermann accused Rep. Michelle Bachmann of fomenting a rebellion, MSNBC’s David Shuster had already hiked the old hyperbole trail. Sitting in for Ed Schultz on The Ed Show, Shuster insisted the rally opposing President Obama’s socialized medicine bill “had all the trappings of a proverbial orgy of bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, and hate!” In fact, one sign alleged contained “a reference to right-wing claims that the president is secretly a Muslim terrorist!” (Emphasis Shuster’s.)
As usual, he could not produce these references to racism, anti-Semitism, or Obama-secretly-got-Islamic-terrorist-training-ism. Even the Huffington Post with its “12 Most Offensive Signs from Bachmann’s Tea Party” found only one sign (a reference to Dachau) that was over-the-top. Despite the underwhelming nature of his evidence, Shuster pumped up the hate.
In a panel discussion about the economy minutes later, an enraged Bill Press challenged Republican Ron Christie, “You show me one sign that any Code Pink protester ever had that matches that disgusting stuff we saw yesterday in front of the U.S. Capitol.”
I’ll see ya and raise ya. A few years ago, I put together a page for FrontPage Magazine featuring some of the most disturbing signs “peace” protesters had carried up to that point. Here a few images from that cache:
Despite the Left’s best efforts to paint middle American anti-socialists as extremists, the fringe were out in force at the “peace” marches, so often addressed by Congressional Democrats. Aside from the protests’ organizers — International ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice, and Not In Our Name — there were certain conspicuous participants:
Not long ago, John Perazzo pointed readers to a source of more recent signs, nearly all calling for George W. Bush’s assassination. (As I have noted, the Left regularly implored someone to kill President Bush in cold blood.)
Again, here are the Huffington Post’s 12 Most Offensive Signs.
Obama on Ft. Hood: Cover Your Ears & Close Your Eyes « NewsReal Blog
Obama on Ft. Hood: Cover Your Ears & Close Your Eyes « NewsReal Blog
President Obama took all of about one minute and 30 seconds on Friday morning to comment on Thursday’s Ft. Hood massacre before moving on to comments regarding the economy. We were admonished thus:
“I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”
Exactly what IS one to conclude about this incident in which 13 were killed and 30 injured by a Muslim officer in the United States Army who according to witnesses shouted “Allahu Akbar” before gunning down innocent bystanders? That he was a victim of harassment who simply “snapped?” An unfortunate victim of “post-traumatic stress disorder” who had never been anywhere near a war zone? A random nutcase? What sort of mass insanity allows such claims to be taken seriously in the first place?
Unfortunately our President is not alone in urging caution regarding an event that should be cause for outrage on multiple levels in the mind of any rational human being. The vast majority of media coverage followed the same politically-correct template we have come to expect, taking care to avoid any discussion of Islamic ideology as a motivating factor in the attack. It can in fact be argued that this was the PRIMARY factor motivating Nidal Malik Hasan, and this case seems to grow stronger by the hour with each new fact released. Not to acknowledge that this horrific act was by any objective measure the very definition of a terrorist attack is to put our society and our nation at risk for more of the same.
Here we have a man who openly and repeatedly expressed sympathy for the enemy in wartime to fellow soldiers and even his superior officer, and despite this was recently (May of this year) promoted from the rank of Captain to Major. Hasan had posted statements on the Internet expressing solidarity with Muslim suicide bombers – a fact which was evidently investigated and then promptly dismissed as being of no consequence. He had reportedly given presentations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center on why infidels should convert to Islam. This is not only shocking but profoundly disturbing, as it indicates that our military has been infiltrated at a very high level by a fifth column.
CAIR Equivocates in Fort Hood Condemnations « NewsReal Blog
CAIR Equivocates in Fort Hood Condemnations « NewsReal Blog: "Editor’s Note: See NewsReal’s previous commentaries on the Fort Hood Massacre:
* Forsmark Got It Right – And It’s Not Just Olbermann
* Our Brain Dead Country
* To MSNBC the Least Important Thing about Killer Army Doctor is He was a Muslim Who Lauded Suicide Bombers: Meltdown with Keith Olbermann Part 14
* Huge Military Slaughter — But First A “Shout Out” to Obama’s Bud
It would be reassuring if Muslim organizations were more unequivocal in their condemnation of acts of violence done in the name of Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) includes in its statement condemning the killings at Fort Hood, the following warning:
“Unfortunately, based on past experience, we also urge American Muslims, and those who may be perceived to be Muslim, to take appropriate precautions to protect themselves, their families and their religious institutions from possible backlash.”
This statement is designed to create and establish among Muslims the feeling they are victims within America. It also is meant to provide the basis for understanding why some lunatic who is Muslim might have reason to “snap.” This is not much different than the view, still held by a large minority of Americans (Reverend Wright anyone?) that 9/11 was simply America’s chickens coming home to roost.
This warning by CAIR is an irritant and does not belong in this press release. Hate crimes in America are virtually non-existent, relative to its size. The last year for which the FBI has detailed data is 2007. There were a total of 1477 hate crimes against religion, 1010 of which were “Anti-Jewish.” “Anti-Catholic” and Anti-Protestant” crimes totaled 129, “Anti-Muslim” crimes totaled 133, and all other religions combined totaled 241. No deaths were attributed to the victim’s religion. There were 16,000 murders in America in 2008. Bias crimes exist, but they are a sideshow. To include them in a statement condemning the murders at Fort Hood is political propaganda.
It would also be reassuring if CAIR’s statement were more specific in its condemnation. They state that"
* Forsmark Got It Right – And It’s Not Just Olbermann
* Our Brain Dead Country
* To MSNBC the Least Important Thing about Killer Army Doctor is He was a Muslim Who Lauded Suicide Bombers: Meltdown with Keith Olbermann Part 14
* Huge Military Slaughter — But First A “Shout Out” to Obama’s Bud
It would be reassuring if Muslim organizations were more unequivocal in their condemnation of acts of violence done in the name of Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) includes in its statement condemning the killings at Fort Hood, the following warning:
“Unfortunately, based on past experience, we also urge American Muslims, and those who may be perceived to be Muslim, to take appropriate precautions to protect themselves, their families and their religious institutions from possible backlash.”
This statement is designed to create and establish among Muslims the feeling they are victims within America. It also is meant to provide the basis for understanding why some lunatic who is Muslim might have reason to “snap.” This is not much different than the view, still held by a large minority of Americans (Reverend Wright anyone?) that 9/11 was simply America’s chickens coming home to roost.
This warning by CAIR is an irritant and does not belong in this press release. Hate crimes in America are virtually non-existent, relative to its size. The last year for which the FBI has detailed data is 2007. There were a total of 1477 hate crimes against religion, 1010 of which were “Anti-Jewish.” “Anti-Catholic” and Anti-Protestant” crimes totaled 129, “Anti-Muslim” crimes totaled 133, and all other religions combined totaled 241. No deaths were attributed to the victim’s religion. There were 16,000 murders in America in 2008. Bias crimes exist, but they are a sideshow. To include them in a statement condemning the murders at Fort Hood is political propaganda.
It would also be reassuring if CAIR’s statement were more specific in its condemnation. They state that"
Has Chris Matthews Lost that Lovin’ Feelin’? « NewsReal Blog
Has Chris Matthews Lost that Lovin’ Feelin’? « NewsReal Blog
Coming from a man who usually possesses the objectivity of a lovesick puppy when it comes to Obama, Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s Hardball sounded out of character when he barked at White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, accusing the president of hanging out with the rich cats, and smelling like a Clinton.
Matthews: “You’re a communications expert, I know it’s tough to have to defend the White House and speak the complete truth… It seems that this president has had to go to a lot of fund raisers lately. He’s played a lot of golf lately, he’s hung around with Geithner, and Summers, and the Paulson crowd. The whole New York rich guy scene; he’s beginning to look like a Clinton. He looks like a typical Democrat now. Hanging out, playing golf, going to rich people’s parties, bringing people in the White House to go bowling. I mean this whole thing is beginning to smell like the Clinton era. What happened to the change we believed in? I’m asking?”
Gibbs seemed slightly off guard when a disenchanted Matthews wanted to know why the president of change had become prince of Wall Street.
Matthews complains to Gibbs,
“People don’t like Goldman Sachs, they don’t like these bailouts…Why are Democrats being put in the position as being seen as the pro-Wall Street party?”
Our Brain Dead Country « NewsReal Blog
Our Brain Dead Country « NewsReal Blog: "A Muslim fanatic with an Internet site praising Islamic suicide bombers as defenders of their comrades is a Major in the U.S. Army with access to military intelligence and lethal weaponry. And it’s not as though the army didn’t know that he was a Muslim fanatic and supporter of the Islamic jihad against the West. He was under investigation for six months because of his anti-American, jihadist rantings. He did not want to be deployed. He wanted to be discharged.
But despite his identification with America’s enemies, the army kept him in its officer corps. How in God’s name was this possible? But it was. And so, after calling America the “aggressor” in Afghanistan and Iraq this Muslim jihadist traitor army officer picks up his semi-automatic weapons and heads for the center at Ft. Hood where soldiers are being deployed to fight the jihadists in Afghanistan to conduct his massacre. Yet this morning the Fox News Channel chiron says “Investigators search for a motive in the Ft. Hood killings.” Is everybody out of their mind?
The Ft. Hood killings are the chickens of the left coming home to roost. Already the chief political correspondent of The Nation has decried even mention of the fact that the jihadist killer Hasan is a Palestinian Muslim. According to The Nation this is “Islamophobia.” This fatuous attempt to protect America’s enemies carries on The Nation’s 60-year tradition as the leading fifth column collaborator with America’s enemies — defender of the Rosenbergs, defender of Hiss, defender of their boss Stalin, defender of Mao, defender of Castro and now defender of Islamic terrorists. But The Nation is only the tip of an iceberg. The fifth column formed out of the unholy alliance between radical Islam and the American left is now entrenched in the White House and throughout our government. And in matters like the Muslim jihadist Major Hasan our military is its captive."
But despite his identification with America’s enemies, the army kept him in its officer corps. How in God’s name was this possible? But it was. And so, after calling America the “aggressor” in Afghanistan and Iraq this Muslim jihadist traitor army officer picks up his semi-automatic weapons and heads for the center at Ft. Hood where soldiers are being deployed to fight the jihadists in Afghanistan to conduct his massacre. Yet this morning the Fox News Channel chiron says “Investigators search for a motive in the Ft. Hood killings.” Is everybody out of their mind?
The Ft. Hood killings are the chickens of the left coming home to roost. Already the chief political correspondent of The Nation has decried even mention of the fact that the jihadist killer Hasan is a Palestinian Muslim. According to The Nation this is “Islamophobia.” This fatuous attempt to protect America’s enemies carries on The Nation’s 60-year tradition as the leading fifth column collaborator with America’s enemies — defender of the Rosenbergs, defender of Hiss, defender of their boss Stalin, defender of Mao, defender of Castro and now defender of Islamic terrorists. But The Nation is only the tip of an iceberg. The fifth column formed out of the unholy alliance between radical Islam and the American left is now entrenched in the White House and throughout our government. And in matters like the Muslim jihadist Major Hasan our military is its captive."
Obama’s Image is Losing its Luster–Everywhere « NewsReal Blog
Obama’s Image is Losing its Luster–Everywhere « NewsReal Blog: "It’s been nearly 5 months since the tyrannical Mullahcracy ruling Iran crushed pro-democracy street demonstrations protesting a seriously flawed election, which gave that country’s seriously flawed President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an undeserved victory.
Amy Goodman, the Marxist host of the seriously flawed Democracy Now! network, has reported that the Iranian regime is at it again. While marking the thirtieth anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran (an event which is celebrated annually in that country), Goodman noted that:
Iranian security forces reportedly beat opposition protesters marching in central Tehran.
Now, this celebratory extravaganza, sponsored by the Iranian Government to officially commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the 1979 takeover of the embassy—where fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days (with, it is widely believed, Ahmadinejad himself being one of the hostage takers)—was a big deal to the mullahs; and they had warned their population weeks in advance that any attempts to disrupt or overshadow the festivities would not be tolerated.
Before things got out of hand, the usual anti-American speeches were being made outside the former American embassy. When the main speaker, hard-line lawmaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel took to the podium, something surprising yet not entirely unexpected happened: the lawmaker immediately attacked the President of the United States."
Amy Goodman, the Marxist host of the seriously flawed Democracy Now! network, has reported that the Iranian regime is at it again. While marking the thirtieth anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran (an event which is celebrated annually in that country), Goodman noted that:
Iranian security forces reportedly beat opposition protesters marching in central Tehran.
Now, this celebratory extravaganza, sponsored by the Iranian Government to officially commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the 1979 takeover of the embassy—where fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days (with, it is widely believed, Ahmadinejad himself being one of the hostage takers)—was a big deal to the mullahs; and they had warned their population weeks in advance that any attempts to disrupt or overshadow the festivities would not be tolerated.
Before things got out of hand, the usual anti-American speeches were being made outside the former American embassy. When the main speaker, hard-line lawmaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel took to the podium, something surprising yet not entirely unexpected happened: the lawmaker immediately attacked the President of the United States."
Republican Leader John Boehner | Mega-Bureaucracy: J.E.C. Chart Shows Speaker Pelosi’s New Bill Will Create Unprecedented Health Care Labyrinth
Republican Leader John Boehner | Mega-Bureaucracy: J.E.C. Chart Shows Speaker Pelosi’s New Bill Will Create Unprecedented Health Care Labyrinth
The Joint Economic Committee (JEC) House Republican staff, which earlier this year created a chart mapping the bureaucratic complexity of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s original health care proposal (H.R. 3200), has combined similar analysis by the House Republican Conference with the earlier chart. The analysis details new additions to the health care bureaucracy contained in the new version of the Speaker’s bill (H.R. 3962) that were not previously listed. Let’s just say the Speaker’s vision for government-run health care hasn’t gotten any simpler.
“This is the blueprint for a taxpayer-funded mega-bureaucracy,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH). “The new chart is an astonishing and unsettling glimpse of the future that awaits American health care, should H.R. 3962 be passed by the House and signed into law.”
The chart, completed at the direction of Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), the committee’s ranking House Republican Member, shows that the Pelosi plan has grown even more complex in the months since it was originally unveiled by congressional Democrats. The new bill - expected to be brought to a vote in the House as early as Saturday - contains all of the bureaucracy of the original plan, plus a whole lot more, the chart illustrates. The full chart can be seen here:
“The American people have spoken. They don’t want their health care replaced by massive government bureaucracy. This chart shows the Democratic leadership hasn’t listened,” Boehner said. “Instead of starting over on a common-sense plan to improve our health care system, Speaker Pelosi and her allies have created a bureaucratic beast that will end the American health care system as we know it. I commend Ranking House Republican Brady and his team for illustrating what’s at stake.”
In addition to establishing the Mother of All Bureaucracies, House Republicans note, the Pelosi health care bill will kill millions of small business jobs at a time when our nation’s unemployment rate has exceeded 10 percent. It will also cut Medicare, pile massive debt on future generations, increase Americans’ health care costs, and use federal funds to pay for abortion.
Republicans have offered a better solution: a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform, which can be seen in full legislative text at http://healthcare.gop.gov/.
"Republicans are offering a step-by-step, common-sense approach to health care reform - an altogether better solution than the 2,032-page government takeover of health care being pushed through Congress by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
We’ve introduced a bill to lower costs, and increased access to high-quality care - a bill the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed will lower premiums by up to 10 percent, without imposing tax increases on families and small businesses.
As Ohio and other states across the nation continue to struggle with joblessness, rising costs of living and skyrocketing health care costs, our plan offers real relief.
In fact, the House Ways and Means Committee has determined that under the Republican plan, premiums for families will be nearly $5,000 lower than the cheapest plan in the Democrats’ government-run proposal.
Not only does the Republican plan lower health care costs, but it also expands access to quality care at a price our country can afford, and tackles the problems in our health care system that have contributed to the crisis we face today.
Specifically, our bill includes common-sense solutions to:
• Guarantee that all Americans - regardless of pre-existing conditions and past illnesses - have access to the care they need at affordable prices by creating Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs.
• Encourage competition - which is key to lowering prices and increasing quality of care - by allowing Americans to shop for coverage from coast to coast and permitting Americans living in one state to purchase insurance in another.
• Empower small businesses to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do.
• Reward innovation by providing incentive payments to states that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured.
• Help end costly junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order, not because they think it is good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
These are just a few highlights of our bill. To learn more about the responsible, common-sense solutions in the Republican plan and read the entire bill, visit healthcare.gop.gov.
Clearly, our bill offers a stark contrast to Pelosi’s health care plan. Pelosi’s bill represents bureaucracy designed to centralize health care decision-making in Washington at the expense of patients and doctors.
It will create dozens of boards, bureaus and commissions in charge of coming up with new regulations and red tape that will inevitably make health care in this country more expensive.
And despite costing $1.3 trillion, it will push billions more in costs over to already cash-strapped states like Ohio, where our governor is already struggling to fill an estimated $850 million state budget hole.
Enough is enough. Americans are fed up. The trillion-dollar “stimulus” isn't working. Unemployment is rising. The debt to be paid by our kids and grandkids is exploding.
As members of the House of Representatives prepare to take a vote on a health care bill as early as today, they must make a decision:
They can vote for Pelosi’s bill that will raise premiums, increase taxes and cut Medicare benefits for seniors, or they can support the Republican plan that makes health care more affordable and accessible for our families.
The American people have made it clear where they stand. It is time for members of Congress to show they are listening."
We’ve introduced a bill to lower costs, and increased access to high-quality care - a bill the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed will lower premiums by up to 10 percent, without imposing tax increases on families and small businesses.
As Ohio and other states across the nation continue to struggle with joblessness, rising costs of living and skyrocketing health care costs, our plan offers real relief.
In fact, the House Ways and Means Committee has determined that under the Republican plan, premiums for families will be nearly $5,000 lower than the cheapest plan in the Democrats’ government-run proposal.
Not only does the Republican plan lower health care costs, but it also expands access to quality care at a price our country can afford, and tackles the problems in our health care system that have contributed to the crisis we face today.
Specifically, our bill includes common-sense solutions to:
• Guarantee that all Americans - regardless of pre-existing conditions and past illnesses - have access to the care they need at affordable prices by creating Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs.
• Encourage competition - which is key to lowering prices and increasing quality of care - by allowing Americans to shop for coverage from coast to coast and permitting Americans living in one state to purchase insurance in another.
• Empower small businesses to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do.
• Reward innovation by providing incentive payments to states that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured.
• Help end costly junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order, not because they think it is good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
These are just a few highlights of our bill. To learn more about the responsible, common-sense solutions in the Republican plan and read the entire bill, visit healthcare.gop.gov.
Clearly, our bill offers a stark contrast to Pelosi’s health care plan. Pelosi’s bill represents bureaucracy designed to centralize health care decision-making in Washington at the expense of patients and doctors.
It will create dozens of boards, bureaus and commissions in charge of coming up with new regulations and red tape that will inevitably make health care in this country more expensive.
And despite costing $1.3 trillion, it will push billions more in costs over to already cash-strapped states like Ohio, where our governor is already struggling to fill an estimated $850 million state budget hole.
Enough is enough. Americans are fed up. The trillion-dollar “stimulus” isn't working. Unemployment is rising. The debt to be paid by our kids and grandkids is exploding.
As members of the House of Representatives prepare to take a vote on a health care bill as early as today, they must make a decision:
They can vote for Pelosi’s bill that will raise premiums, increase taxes and cut Medicare benefits for seniors, or they can support the Republican plan that makes health care more affordable and accessible for our families.
The American people have made it clear where they stand. It is time for members of Congress to show they are listening."
Friday, November 6, 2009
Martin Feldstein - Martin Feldstein: Obamacare could raise premiums and the ranks of the uninsured - washingtonpost.com
Martin Feldstein - Martin Feldstein: Obamacare could raise premiums and the ranks of the uninsured - washingtonpost.com: "Obamacare could have the unintended consequence of raising health insurance premiums and causing a decline in the number of people with insurance."
Here's why: A key feature of the House and Senate health bills would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions. The new coverage would start immediately, and the premium could not reflect the individual's health condition.
This well-intentioned feature would provide a strong incentive for someone who is healthy to drop his or her health insurance, saving the substantial premium costs. After all, if serious illness hit this person or a family member, he could immediately obtain coverage. As healthy individuals decline coverage in this way, insurance companies would come to have a sicker population. The higher cost of insuring that group would force insurers to raise their premiums. (Separate accident policies might develop to deal with the risk of high-cost care after accidents when there is insufficient time to buy insurance.)
The higher premium level would cause others who are currently insured to drop coverage, pushing premiums even higher. The result would be a spiral of rising premiums and shrinking numbers of insured.
In an attempt to prevent this, the draft legislation provides penalties for individuals who choose not to buy insurance and for employers that do not offer health insurance. But the levels of these fines are generally too low to cause a rational individual to insure.
Here's why: A key feature of the House and Senate health bills would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions. The new coverage would start immediately, and the premium could not reflect the individual's health condition.
This well-intentioned feature would provide a strong incentive for someone who is healthy to drop his or her health insurance, saving the substantial premium costs. After all, if serious illness hit this person or a family member, he could immediately obtain coverage. As healthy individuals decline coverage in this way, insurance companies would come to have a sicker population. The higher cost of insuring that group would force insurers to raise their premiums. (Separate accident policies might develop to deal with the risk of high-cost care after accidents when there is insufficient time to buy insurance.)
The higher premium level would cause others who are currently insured to drop coverage, pushing premiums even higher. The result would be a spiral of rising premiums and shrinking numbers of insured.
In an attempt to prevent this, the draft legislation provides penalties for individuals who choose not to buy insurance and for employers that do not offer health insurance. But the levels of these fines are generally too low to cause a rational individual to insure.
Investors.com - How Strictest Price Control Of All Restrains A Great Medical Advance
Investors.com - How Strictest Price Control Of All Restrains A Great Medical Advance: "The most stringent of all price controls is permitting no price at all to be charged.
That is the legal situation in the United States and in various other countries, when it comes to people who donate one of their own organs to be transplanted into the body of someone else whose liver, kidneys or other organs are badly malfunctioning. It is illegal in these countries to charge for donating one's organs, though it is legal in some other countries such as Iran or Pakistan.
Here again, we can begin by looking at the effects of price control in general, and then see how that applies in a particular case, such as organ transplants.
The most common effect of laws limiting how high prices will be permitted to go is to reduce the quantity supplied. In the case of organ transplants, the number of Americans on waiting lists vastly exceeds the number of organs available, so that an absolute majority of those people die while waiting to get a new liver, kidney or other organ.
While 25,076 organ transplants were performed in the U.S. in 2003, the number of patients on official waiting lists for organs was more than three times that — 89,012. Both the number of kidney transplants and the number of people on waiting lists have doubled in 15 years, so the gap between the two has been widening. More than 50,000 Americans were on waiting lists for kidneys, while only about 12,000 kidneys were available to be transplanted."
That is the legal situation in the United States and in various other countries, when it comes to people who donate one of their own organs to be transplanted into the body of someone else whose liver, kidneys or other organs are badly malfunctioning. It is illegal in these countries to charge for donating one's organs, though it is legal in some other countries such as Iran or Pakistan.
Here again, we can begin by looking at the effects of price control in general, and then see how that applies in a particular case, such as organ transplants.
The most common effect of laws limiting how high prices will be permitted to go is to reduce the quantity supplied. In the case of organ transplants, the number of Americans on waiting lists vastly exceeds the number of organs available, so that an absolute majority of those people die while waiting to get a new liver, kidney or other organ.
While 25,076 organ transplants were performed in the U.S. in 2003, the number of patients on official waiting lists for organs was more than three times that — 89,012. Both the number of kidney transplants and the number of people on waiting lists have doubled in 15 years, so the gap between the two has been widening. More than 50,000 Americans were on waiting lists for kidneys, while only about 12,000 kidneys were available to be transplanted."
Pelosi's Reform Bill Establishes Waiting List - The Philadelphia Bulletin
Pelosi's Reform Bill Establishes Waiting List - The Philadelphia Bulletin: "H.R. 3962, the Democrats’ health insurance reform bill, to be voted on this week by Congress, contains a provision to establish waiting lists as a mechanism to control costs.
Such waiting lists have long been a characteristic – and a bane – of socialized medicine.
Indeed, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled them illegal in June 2005.
'Access to a waiting list is not access to health care,' wrote Canada’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin at the time.
Yet, this is exactly what the Democrats’ plan has in mind for Americans if their proposed bill becomes law.
Called the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D., Ca., unveiled it with great fanfare last week. The bill is sponsored by Rep. John Dingel, D., Mich., and is co-sponsored by Democratic representatives Charles Rangel, of New York, Henry Waxman, Fortney “Pete” Stark, Ca., and George Miller of California as well as representatives Frank Pallone and Robert Andrews of New Jersey. It is more than 1,900 pages long. But one need only turn to page 26 to find the provision for waiting lists. There, listed in Title I 'Immediate Reforms,' Sec. 101 'National High Risk Pool Program,' paragraph (3)(g) 'Covered Benefits Cost Sharing Premiums and Consumer Protection' is paragraph (7) (h)(2) with the heading 'Insufficient Funds.' This states, “If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.'
The High Risk Pool Program is designed exactly for those uninsured individuals who health insurance reform proponents say are the neediest. Estimates are such people comprise one to two percent of the population. Jane Orient, M.D., Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), believes that if the government is willing to deny benefits to those who they purportedly consider the most deserving, then eventually waiting lists will be applied to everyone enrolled in the government’s plan. The Democrats’ promise to increase the amount insured, decrease costs and increase benefits is a chimera according to her."
Such waiting lists have long been a characteristic – and a bane – of socialized medicine.
Indeed, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled them illegal in June 2005.
'Access to a waiting list is not access to health care,' wrote Canada’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin at the time.
Yet, this is exactly what the Democrats’ plan has in mind for Americans if their proposed bill becomes law.
Called the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D., Ca., unveiled it with great fanfare last week. The bill is sponsored by Rep. John Dingel, D., Mich., and is co-sponsored by Democratic representatives Charles Rangel, of New York, Henry Waxman, Fortney “Pete” Stark, Ca., and George Miller of California as well as representatives Frank Pallone and Robert Andrews of New Jersey. It is more than 1,900 pages long. But one need only turn to page 26 to find the provision for waiting lists. There, listed in Title I 'Immediate Reforms,' Sec. 101 'National High Risk Pool Program,' paragraph (3)(g) 'Covered Benefits Cost Sharing Premiums and Consumer Protection' is paragraph (7) (h)(2) with the heading 'Insufficient Funds.' This states, “If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.'
The High Risk Pool Program is designed exactly for those uninsured individuals who health insurance reform proponents say are the neediest. Estimates are such people comprise one to two percent of the population. Jane Orient, M.D., Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), believes that if the government is willing to deny benefits to those who they purportedly consider the most deserving, then eventually waiting lists will be applied to everyone enrolled in the government’s plan. The Democrats’ promise to increase the amount insured, decrease costs and increase benefits is a chimera according to her."
Pajamas Media » Bizarro Health Care ‘Reform’: Expect Less, Pay More
Pajamas Media » Bizarro Health Care ‘Reform’: Expect Less, Pay More: "Expect less, pay more. It’s not the slogan for some “Bizarro World” Target store in a comic book; it’s an accurate slogan for congressional Democrats’ health care “reform” proposals. They include a new government-run insurance plan, mandatory insurance, new political controls on insurance, and new taxes.
Government-run health plan
You should expect less choice with a new government-run health plan, known as the “public option.” As economics professor Scott Harrington has noted, the public option would be the only option. It would unfairly compete with non-government insurers, which must comply with burdensome political controls that increase premiums. Millions of people would be herded to the government plan who did not choose it as an “option.”
It’s fitting that some House Democrats want to call the government program “Medicare Part E,” where “E” is for “everyone.” Before Medicare, retirees bought voluntary insurance in increasing numbers. Medicare killed this trend and soon monopolized the market.
Also expect less access, as those with Medicaid and Medicare already know. As Dr. Marc Siegal has noted:
More and more of my fellow doctors are turning away Medicare patients because of the diminished reimbursements and the growing delay in payments. … The problem is even worse with Medicaid.
But do expect to pay more with a new government insurance plan. Since Medicare and Medicaid underpay doctors and hospitals, they recoup the loss by increasing your premiums — by almost $2,000 annually for a family of four. To make things worse, proposed Medicaid expansion would further increase your premiums.
Mandatory insurance"
Government-run health plan
You should expect less choice with a new government-run health plan, known as the “public option.” As economics professor Scott Harrington has noted, the public option would be the only option. It would unfairly compete with non-government insurers, which must comply with burdensome political controls that increase premiums. Millions of people would be herded to the government plan who did not choose it as an “option.”
It’s fitting that some House Democrats want to call the government program “Medicare Part E,” where “E” is for “everyone.” Before Medicare, retirees bought voluntary insurance in increasing numbers. Medicare killed this trend and soon monopolized the market.
Also expect less access, as those with Medicaid and Medicare already know. As Dr. Marc Siegal has noted:
More and more of my fellow doctors are turning away Medicare patients because of the diminished reimbursements and the growing delay in payments. … The problem is even worse with Medicaid.
But do expect to pay more with a new government insurance plan. Since Medicare and Medicaid underpay doctors and hospitals, they recoup the loss by increasing your premiums — by almost $2,000 annually for a family of four. To make things worse, proposed Medicaid expansion would further increase your premiums.
Mandatory insurance"
Ailing ‘uninsurables’ may face long wait for care - Health care- msnbc.com
Ailing ‘uninsurables’ may face long wait for care - Health care- msnbc.com: "WASHINGTON - You're afraid your cancer is back, and a health insurance company just turned you down. Under the health care bills in Congress, you could apply for coverage through a new high-risk pool that President Barack Obama promises would immediately start serving patients with pre-existing medical problems. Wait a second. Read the fine print. You may have to be uninsured for six months to qualify.
'If you are a cancer patient and have cancer now, you can't wait six months to go into a plan because your condition can go from bad to death,' said Stephen Finan, a policy expert with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. He called the waiting period in the Senate bill 'unacceptable.'
Advocates for people with serious health problems, as well as some insurance experts, are raising questions about one of the most important upfront benefits in the Democratic health care legislation: a high-risk pool for the medically uninsurable."
'If you are a cancer patient and have cancer now, you can't wait six months to go into a plan because your condition can go from bad to death,' said Stephen Finan, a policy expert with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. He called the waiting period in the Senate bill 'unacceptable.'
Advocates for people with serious health problems, as well as some insurance experts, are raising questions about one of the most important upfront benefits in the Democratic health care legislation: a high-risk pool for the medically uninsurable."
Obama's 'army' crashes colleges for health 'reform'
Obama's 'army' crashes colleges for health 'reform': "WND Exclusive MARCHING ORDERS
Obama's 'army' crashes colleges for health 'reform'
Students recruited to lobby Congress in major push for Obamacare
Posted: November 05, 2009
11:54 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
President Obama's 'grassroots army' has descended upon college campuses, knocking on dorm doors to recruit students and slam lawmakers with phone calls pushing health-care 'reform.'
Obama for America, Obama's 2008 political campaign, merged with the Democratic National Committee in January and is now known as Organizing
for America. The grassroots army that some refer to as 'Obama 2.0' is hosting a contest to see which college can call the most state and U.S. representatives by the end of November, the Arizona State University campus newspaper reports.
According to the report, Arizona OFA Director Jessica Jones said students may win bragging rights and other prizes if they blast legislators with the most calls in favor of health-care legislation.
OFA plans to have chapters present at all Pacific-10 school campuses. The Pacific-10 universities are the University of Arizona; Arizona State University; University of California, Berkeley; University of Oregon; Stanford University; University of California, Los Angeles; University of Southern California; University of Washington; and Washington State University.
The organization is urging students to sign a pledge promising they will contact lawmakers in support of Obama's health plan.
Jones told ASU's State Press that OFA has two goals with its contest: 'We really want to get students excited about OFA and get them involved in the organization. The other purpose is to engage in competition as a community, to show how many people want health-care reform and that [individuals are] not the only one[s] working on it.'
Political science major Erik Carlson, a Tempe campus intern for OFA, said he's forming an OFA chapter on the Arizona State University campus. He told the newspaper his group will make phone calls, set up an information booth and go door-to-door in residence halls to convince students to make the pledge."
Obama's 'army' crashes colleges for health 'reform'
Students recruited to lobby Congress in major push for Obamacare
Posted: November 05, 2009
11:54 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
President Obama's 'grassroots army' has descended upon college campuses, knocking on dorm doors to recruit students and slam lawmakers with phone calls pushing health-care 'reform.'
Obama for America, Obama's 2008 political campaign, merged with the Democratic National Committee in January and is now known as Organizing
for America. The grassroots army that some refer to as 'Obama 2.0' is hosting a contest to see which college can call the most state and U.S. representatives by the end of November, the Arizona State University campus newspaper reports.
According to the report, Arizona OFA Director Jessica Jones said students may win bragging rights and other prizes if they blast legislators with the most calls in favor of health-care legislation.
OFA plans to have chapters present at all Pacific-10 school campuses. The Pacific-10 universities are the University of Arizona; Arizona State University; University of California, Berkeley; University of Oregon; Stanford University; University of California, Los Angeles; University of Southern California; University of Washington; and Washington State University.
The organization is urging students to sign a pledge promising they will contact lawmakers in support of Obama's health plan.
Jones told ASU's State Press that OFA has two goals with its contest: 'We really want to get students excited about OFA and get them involved in the organization. The other purpose is to engage in competition as a community, to show how many people want health-care reform and that [individuals are] not the only one[s] working on it.'
Political science major Erik Carlson, a Tempe campus intern for OFA, said he's forming an OFA chapter on the Arizona State University campus. He told the newspaper his group will make phone calls, set up an information booth and go door-to-door in residence halls to convince students to make the pledge."
YID With LID: Pelosi/Reid SCAM America on CBO Cost For Obamacare->House Bill Costs $1,8 TRILLION
YID With LID: Pelosi/Reid SCAM America on CBO Cost For Obamacare->House Bill Costs $1,8 TRILLION: "Each of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) costs for Obamacare released by the leaders of the Senate and House respectively were totally honest, and totally full of crap ! Its all a matter of timing. In their efforts to gain support for the government take over the health care industry Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid are Running a scam on the American People.
Here's how it works, each plan starts the taxes in year one, but they back loaded costs. The house bill for example doesn't start spending real money until 2013, year 4 of the plan. The CBO measures costs for ten year periods (2010-2019). The Congressional leadership chose to release the CBO's 2010-2019 estimate, but if they chose to release the estimate for the actual first 10 years of the plan The CBO reports the House bill would cost $1.8 trillion, and the Senate bill would cost $1.7 trillion. Pelosi would raise Americans' taxes by $1.1 trillion over that period, while Reid would hike them by $1 trillion:"
Here's how it works, each plan starts the taxes in year one, but they back loaded costs. The house bill for example doesn't start spending real money until 2013, year 4 of the plan. The CBO measures costs for ten year periods (2010-2019). The Congressional leadership chose to release the CBO's 2010-2019 estimate, but if they chose to release the estimate for the actual first 10 years of the plan The CBO reports the House bill would cost $1.8 trillion, and the Senate bill would cost $1.7 trillion. Pelosi would raise Americans' taxes by $1.1 trillion over that period, while Reid would hike them by $1 trillion:"
Rep. Weiner Can't Defend CBO Numbers On ObamaCare
Rep. Weiner Can't Defend CBO Numbers On ObamaCare
type="text/javascript"
src="http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/js/swfobject9.js">
type="text/javascript"
src="http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/js/embed.js">
type="text/javascript">
var flv = "http://media2.foxnews.com/110509/110509_an_WEINER_B1200.flv";
var image = "http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3055/3032764207_e3c98f7be8.jpg";
embedVideo(flv,image);
type="text/javascript"
src="http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/js/swfobject9.js">
type="text/javascript"
src="http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/js/embed.js">
type="text/javascript">
var flv = "http://media2.foxnews.com/110509/110509_an_WEINER_B1200.flv";
var image = "http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3055/3032764207_e3c98f7be8.jpg";
embedVideo(flv,image);
American Thinker: Obama-Pelosi to Health Insurers: Shut Up or We'll Shut You Down
American Thinker: Obama-Pelosi to Health Insurers: Shut Up or We'll Shut You Down: "President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and their Democratic followers in Congress have a rather draconian message for the private sector: Speak now, and we'll make you forever hold your peace.
Up until a few weeks ago, America's health insurers were sheepishly on board with the Obama-Pelosi health care reform plan. Perhaps the industry feared that voicing any concern about the plan would unleash the ire of an increasingly rabid Democratic majority on Capitol Hill. As it turns out, the health insurers were right.
No longer able to sit idly by while the President and his chief minion in the House amateurishly try to revamp one-sixth of the U.S. economy, the health insurance industry released a study they commissioned that analyzes the costs of the Obama-Pelosi plan. The results are quite sobering. The study shows that 'between 2010 and 2019 the cumulative increases in the cost of a typical family policy under this reform proposal will be approximately $20,700 more than it would be under the current system.' (Emphasis mine.)
Rather than challenge the study's results on merit, Obama and Pelosi wasted no time demonizing the health insurance industry with hyperbole and rhetoric. And then Pelosi lowered the boom, expressing 'tremendous interest' in revoking the industry's decades-old antitrust exemption. This proved to be no empty threat, as the Democrat-run House Judiciary Committee promptly passed a bill to do exactly that.
Now, curtailing the health insurance industry's limited exemption from federal antitrust laws may or may not be good policy. But given the circumstances, this is beside the point.
The real issue is that Obama and Pelosi are using the power of Congress to muzzle the speech of a private sector industry, First Amendment be damned. It couldn't be more blatant. Stay quiet about their disaster of a health plan, and Obama and Pelosi will leave you alone. Point out how their plan will actually make matters worse, and Obama and Pelosi will hit you back with new laws that hurt your business.
To listen to the rhetoric of Obama, Pelosi, and their far-left followers, the First Amendment right to free speech is a sacred cow among sacred cows -- so much so that even dunking a crucifix in urine or smearing animal dung on the Virgin Mary is to be protected, lest we end up on a slippery slope toward Marxist-style censorship."
Up until a few weeks ago, America's health insurers were sheepishly on board with the Obama-Pelosi health care reform plan. Perhaps the industry feared that voicing any concern about the plan would unleash the ire of an increasingly rabid Democratic majority on Capitol Hill. As it turns out, the health insurers were right.
No longer able to sit idly by while the President and his chief minion in the House amateurishly try to revamp one-sixth of the U.S. economy, the health insurance industry released a study they commissioned that analyzes the costs of the Obama-Pelosi plan. The results are quite sobering. The study shows that 'between 2010 and 2019 the cumulative increases in the cost of a typical family policy under this reform proposal will be approximately $20,700 more than it would be under the current system.' (Emphasis mine.)
Rather than challenge the study's results on merit, Obama and Pelosi wasted no time demonizing the health insurance industry with hyperbole and rhetoric. And then Pelosi lowered the boom, expressing 'tremendous interest' in revoking the industry's decades-old antitrust exemption. This proved to be no empty threat, as the Democrat-run House Judiciary Committee promptly passed a bill to do exactly that.
Now, curtailing the health insurance industry's limited exemption from federal antitrust laws may or may not be good policy. But given the circumstances, this is beside the point.
The real issue is that Obama and Pelosi are using the power of Congress to muzzle the speech of a private sector industry, First Amendment be damned. It couldn't be more blatant. Stay quiet about their disaster of a health plan, and Obama and Pelosi will leave you alone. Point out how their plan will actually make matters worse, and Obama and Pelosi will hit you back with new laws that hurt your business.
To listen to the rhetoric of Obama, Pelosi, and their far-left followers, the First Amendment right to free speech is a sacred cow among sacred cows -- so much so that even dunking a crucifix in urine or smearing animal dung on the Virgin Mary is to be protected, lest we end up on a slippery slope toward Marxist-style censorship."
YouTube - Glenn Beck Clips 11-04-09 Seg4 of 6 Dr. Janda: We Already Have HC Rationing in Stimulus Bill
YouTube - Glenn Beck Clips 11-04-09 Seg4 of 6 Dr. Janda: We Already Have HC Rationing in Stimulus Bill
Also see:
http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios.html
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services today announced the members of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the new Council will help coordinate research and guide investments in comparative effectiveness research funded by the Recovery Act.
“Comparative effectiveness research can improve care for all Americans and is an important element of President Obama’s health reform plan,” said HHS Spokeswoman Jenny Backus. “President Obama is committed to openness and transparency and the Coordinating Council will host open meetings and a listening session as it begins its important work.”
Comparative effectiveness research provides information on the relative strengths and weakness of various medical interventions. Such research will give clinicians and patients valid information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system
The 15 member Council, named today in accordance with a Congressionally-mandate timeline, will assist the agencies of the Federal government, including HHS and the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense, as well as others, to coordinate comparative effectiveness and related health services research. The Recovery Act authorized $300 million for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, $400 million for the National Institutes of Health, and $400 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support comparative effectiveness research.
The Council will not recommend clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment. The Council will consider the needs of populations served by federal programs and opportunities to build and expand on current investments and priorities. It will also provide input on priorities for the $400 million fund in the Recovery Act that the Secretary will allocate to advance this type of research.
Council members represent a diverse set of individuals and agencies; most of its members are clinicians. Representatives on the Council will address the impact on subpopulations. To ensure that all voices are heard, the Council will hold a public listening session on April 14, 2009. Its deliberations and recommendations will be public and transparent, consistent with all Recovery Act investments as well as the President’s commitment to open government.
A list of Council members is included below.
Also see:
http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios.html
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services today announced the members of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the new Council will help coordinate research and guide investments in comparative effectiveness research funded by the Recovery Act.
“Comparative effectiveness research can improve care for all Americans and is an important element of President Obama’s health reform plan,” said HHS Spokeswoman Jenny Backus. “President Obama is committed to openness and transparency and the Coordinating Council will host open meetings and a listening session as it begins its important work.”
Comparative effectiveness research provides information on the relative strengths and weakness of various medical interventions. Such research will give clinicians and patients valid information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system
The 15 member Council, named today in accordance with a Congressionally-mandate timeline, will assist the agencies of the Federal government, including HHS and the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense, as well as others, to coordinate comparative effectiveness and related health services research. The Recovery Act authorized $300 million for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, $400 million for the National Institutes of Health, and $400 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support comparative effectiveness research.
The Council will not recommend clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment. The Council will consider the needs of populations served by federal programs and opportunities to build and expand on current investments and priorities. It will also provide input on priorities for the $400 million fund in the Recovery Act that the Secretary will allocate to advance this type of research.
Council members represent a diverse set of individuals and agencies; most of its members are clinicians. Representatives on the Council will address the impact on subpopulations. To ensure that all voices are heard, the Council will hold a public listening session on April 14, 2009. Its deliberations and recommendations will be public and transparent, consistent with all Recovery Act investments as well as the President’s commitment to open government.
A list of Council members is included below.
Shooter advised Obama transition
Shooter advised Obama transition: "NEW YORK – Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in yesterday's massacre at Fort Hood, played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama's transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document.
The Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University published a document May 19, entitled 'Thinking Anew – Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 – January 2009,' in which Hasan of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine is listed on page 29 of the document as a Task Force Event Participant.
Hasan received his medical degree from the military's Uniformed Services University School in Bethesda, Md., in 2001.
Noting that the Obama administration transition was proceeding, the GWU Homeland Security Policy Institute report described on the first page the role of the Presidential Transition Task Force as including 'representatives from past Administrations, State government, Fortune 500 companies, academia, research institutions and non-governmental organizations with global reach.'
While the GWU task force participants included several members of government, including representatives of the Department of Justice and the U.S Department of Homeland Security, there is no indication in the document that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition, other than to serve in a university-based advisory capacity."
The Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University published a document May 19, entitled 'Thinking Anew – Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 – January 2009,' in which Hasan of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine is listed on page 29 of the document as a Task Force Event Participant.
Hasan received his medical degree from the military's Uniformed Services University School in Bethesda, Md., in 2001.
Noting that the Obama administration transition was proceeding, the GWU Homeland Security Policy Institute report described on the first page the role of the Presidential Transition Task Force as including 'representatives from past Administrations, State government, Fortune 500 companies, academia, research institutions and non-governmental organizations with global reach.'
While the GWU task force participants included several members of government, including representatives of the Department of Justice and the U.S Department of Homeland Security, there is no indication in the document that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition, other than to serve in a university-based advisory capacity."
Andrew Bostom — Uncreated, Uncreative Words
Andrew Bostom — Uncreated, Uncreative Words: "From this AP story about the devout Muslim, execution-style murderer of US soldiers and civilian personnel at Fort Hood, Nidal Malik Hassan, surviving erstwhile “martyr”:
At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades. They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case. One of the officials said late Thursday that federal search warrants were being drawn up to authorize the seizure of Hasan’s computer. Retired Army Col. Terry Lee, who said he worked with Hasan, told Fox News that Hasan had hoped President Barack Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Lee said Hasan got into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported the wars, and had tried hard to prevent his pending deployment.
It is likely that the full Nidal Malik Hasan comments alluded to in the AP story are these:
There was a grenade thrown among a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best."
At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades. They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case. One of the officials said late Thursday that federal search warrants were being drawn up to authorize the seizure of Hasan’s computer. Retired Army Col. Terry Lee, who said he worked with Hasan, told Fox News that Hasan had hoped President Barack Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Lee said Hasan got into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported the wars, and had tried hard to prevent his pending deployment.
It is likely that the full Nidal Malik Hasan comments alluded to in the AP story are these:
There was a grenade thrown among a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best."
Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting | NBC Chicago
Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting | NBC Chicago: "President Obama didn't wait long after Tuesday's devastating elections to give critics another reason to question his leadership, but this time the subject matter was more grim than a pair of governorships.
After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.
But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a 'shout-out' to 'Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.' Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?
Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur."
After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.
But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a 'shout-out' to 'Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.' Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?
Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur."
House Prepares Health Vote, Undaunted by Elections (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
House Prepares Health Vote, Undaunted by Elections (Update1) - Bloomberg.com: "Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- House Democratic leaders, undeterred by delays in the Senate or this week’s Republican electoral triumphs, plan to call a vote Saturday on the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. health-care policy in four decades.
The House will move on the $1.05 trillion legislation that would cover 36 million uninsured people and create a government plan to compete with private insurers even after the election of Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia. President Barack Obama will go to Capitol Hill tomorrow to meet with House Democrats, as they seek the 218 votes they need to pass the bill, a Democratic leadership aide said.
Party leaders signaled they’re ready for a debate on the legislation and a vote on its final passage by filing a 42-page amendment that made last-minute changes to the bill. The Nov. 3 filing triggered a 72-hour waiting period that Democrats pledged to give Republicans before a vote.
“It’s going to be close,” House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer told reporters today, while predicting victory. “This is a huge undertaking; there are legitimate concerns.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected claims that Democrats may have lost momentum on Election Day. “From my perspective, we won,” she said, pointing to Democratic wins in two House races to fill vacancies in California and New York.
Health-Care ‘Victory’"
The House will move on the $1.05 trillion legislation that would cover 36 million uninsured people and create a government plan to compete with private insurers even after the election of Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia. President Barack Obama will go to Capitol Hill tomorrow to meet with House Democrats, as they seek the 218 votes they need to pass the bill, a Democratic leadership aide said.
Party leaders signaled they’re ready for a debate on the legislation and a vote on its final passage by filing a 42-page amendment that made last-minute changes to the bill. The Nov. 3 filing triggered a 72-hour waiting period that Democrats pledged to give Republicans before a vote.
“It’s going to be close,” House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer told reporters today, while predicting victory. “This is a huge undertaking; there are legitimate concerns.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected claims that Democrats may have lost momentum on Election Day. “From my perspective, we won,” she said, pointing to Democratic wins in two House races to fill vacancies in California and New York.
Health-Care ‘Victory’"
Health care by coercive government | Washington Examiner
Health care by coercive government | Washington Examiner: "America's Founding Fathers established a government based on the consent of the governed. They never envisioned a government that ran the lives of its citizens with or without their consent. Suffice it to say they would turn in their graves if they read the 1,900-plus-page health care reform bill the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on Saturday. (Proponents of the bill have promoted it for months using multiple fairy tales that are ably exposed on page 21 by The Examiner's David Freddoso and Mark Hemingway.)
That American citizens should be fined or even put in federal prison for refusing to purchase government-approved health insurance is as un-American as any idea we can imagine. But such a mandate is the very heart of the bill written behind closed doors by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her privileged pals. If their bill is approved by the House tomorrow, we will be a big step closer to the day when everybody gets their health care insurance through the government or from an approved insurer offering policies that meet meticulously detailed specifications contained in thousands of pages of federal regulations.
Welcome to America, land of the formerly free, and home of citizens covered by a nationalized health care system crafted by the same government that can't care for American Indians on their reservations or deliver swine flu shots on time.
It would be one thing if Democrats were simply trying to insure the uninsured, but their bill goes far beyond this modest goal. Democrats believe they must first tighten their regulatory grip on what's left of the private health care industry, then squeeze with all their bureaucratic might to force costs down by effectively rationing health care."
That American citizens should be fined or even put in federal prison for refusing to purchase government-approved health insurance is as un-American as any idea we can imagine. But such a mandate is the very heart of the bill written behind closed doors by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her privileged pals. If their bill is approved by the House tomorrow, we will be a big step closer to the day when everybody gets their health care insurance through the government or from an approved insurer offering policies that meet meticulously detailed specifications contained in thousands of pages of federal regulations.
Welcome to America, land of the formerly free, and home of citizens covered by a nationalized health care system crafted by the same government that can't care for American Indians on their reservations or deliver swine flu shots on time.
It would be one thing if Democrats were simply trying to insure the uninsured, but their bill goes far beyond this modest goal. Democrats believe they must first tighten their regulatory grip on what's left of the private health care industry, then squeeze with all their bureaucratic might to force costs down by effectively rationing health care."
Don't count on stimulus job tally - JSOnline
Don't count on stimulus job tally - JSOnline: "A stimulus job report that says more than 10,000 jobs were saved or created in Wisconsin is rife with errors, double counting and inflated numbers based more on satisfying federal formulas than creating real jobs, a Journal Sentinel review has found.
In one case, five jobs were mistakenly listed as 50 - and then counted twice. In another, pay raises to workers were listed as saving more than 100 jobs. And in another, jobs were listed as saved even though the money had not been received and no work on the project had begun.
The problems mirror those surfacing around the country, as the federal numbers claiming 640,000 jobs created or saved by stimulus money are being scrutinized.
Among the Journal Sentinel's findings:
Double-counted jobs: About $7.3 million of federal money will flow to the Parkland Sanitary District in Douglas County to replace its sewer system, a project listed as creating or saving 100 jobs even though work won't start until this spring, federal recovery data shows.
But that number is inflated by 95 jobs, Parkland Sanitary District treasurer Eric Shaffer admitted.
When reporting to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's online reporting system, Schaffer meant to type '5' but mistakenly added a zero - and that 50-job figure appears twice in the federal data because it was a combined grant and loan. He tried to correct the error, but was told it was too late for the federal reporting deadline.
'We are volunteers, and we made a mistake,' Shaffer said. 'It was a simple typographical error, and we tried to fix it. Now that we understand the system, it will be much easier.'
Meanwhile, three other Wisconsin towns reported jobs on combined federal loans and grants that were counted twice, doubling their totals from 35 to 70 jobs, records show.
Any erroneous job figures won't be corrected until January, said Ed Pound, communications director at the federal Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the oversight panel for stimulus money.
'Recipients are going to make mistakes, and we've had a fair number of those,' Pound said. 'But we said from the very beginning, there were going to be errors because this is the first time people have done this. It's just not surprising.'"
In one case, five jobs were mistakenly listed as 50 - and then counted twice. In another, pay raises to workers were listed as saving more than 100 jobs. And in another, jobs were listed as saved even though the money had not been received and no work on the project had begun.
The problems mirror those surfacing around the country, as the federal numbers claiming 640,000 jobs created or saved by stimulus money are being scrutinized.
Among the Journal Sentinel's findings:
Double-counted jobs: About $7.3 million of federal money will flow to the Parkland Sanitary District in Douglas County to replace its sewer system, a project listed as creating or saving 100 jobs even though work won't start until this spring, federal recovery data shows.
But that number is inflated by 95 jobs, Parkland Sanitary District treasurer Eric Shaffer admitted.
When reporting to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's online reporting system, Schaffer meant to type '5' but mistakenly added a zero - and that 50-job figure appears twice in the federal data because it was a combined grant and loan. He tried to correct the error, but was told it was too late for the federal reporting deadline.
'We are volunteers, and we made a mistake,' Shaffer said. 'It was a simple typographical error, and we tried to fix it. Now that we understand the system, it will be much easier.'
Meanwhile, three other Wisconsin towns reported jobs on combined federal loans and grants that were counted twice, doubling their totals from 35 to 70 jobs, records show.
Any erroneous job figures won't be corrected until January, said Ed Pound, communications director at the federal Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the oversight panel for stimulus money.
'Recipients are going to make mistakes, and we've had a fair number of those,' Pound said. 'But we said from the very beginning, there were going to be errors because this is the first time people have done this. It's just not surprising.'"
The inherited deficits fallacy | KeithHennessey.com
The inherited deficits fallacy | KeithHennessey.com: "Budget Director Peter Orszag spoke at NYU yesterday, a speech titled “Rescue, Recovery, and Reining in the Deficit.”
I wrote a super-long post yesterday, but it was too much. So today I respond to the headline-inducing element of the speech. Tomorrow I will post a longer point-by-point response to the rest of his speech.
Warning: my tone in this post is a smidge more aggressive than usual. Director Orszag’s speech fired me up.
Here is the part of the Director’s speech that got the most attention:
ORSZAG: So how did we get here?
Of the $9 trillion in deficits projected over the coming decade, nearly $5 trillion comes as a result of failing to pay in the past for just two policies — the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and the creation of a Medicare prescription drug benefit.
The cost of the tax cuts will total about $4 trillion over the next decade, including the additional interest on the debt the federal government will have to pay since the tax cuts were deficit financed. The Medicare prescription drug bill will add about another $700 billion to the deficit – bringing us to about $5 trillion total for the cost of just these two policies.
In addition, roughly $3.5 trillion can be attributed to automatic economic stabilizers.
As the economy enters recession, certain spending programs, such as unemployment insurance and food stamps, automatically increase and revenues tend to decline. Although this helps to ameliorate the economic downturn by stimulating demand, it also leads to higher deficits.
Finally, there is the Recovery Act which accounts for just 10 percent of the entire deficit over the next decade.
All told, the entire $9 trillion deficit reflects the failure to pay for policies in the past and the cost of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and the steps we had to take to combat it.
Now, assigning blame never solves a problem, but it is important to understand that we didn’t get where we are merely as a result of bad luck."
I wrote a super-long post yesterday, but it was too much. So today I respond to the headline-inducing element of the speech. Tomorrow I will post a longer point-by-point response to the rest of his speech.
Warning: my tone in this post is a smidge more aggressive than usual. Director Orszag’s speech fired me up.
Here is the part of the Director’s speech that got the most attention:
ORSZAG: So how did we get here?
Of the $9 trillion in deficits projected over the coming decade, nearly $5 trillion comes as a result of failing to pay in the past for just two policies — the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and the creation of a Medicare prescription drug benefit.
The cost of the tax cuts will total about $4 trillion over the next decade, including the additional interest on the debt the federal government will have to pay since the tax cuts were deficit financed. The Medicare prescription drug bill will add about another $700 billion to the deficit – bringing us to about $5 trillion total for the cost of just these two policies.
In addition, roughly $3.5 trillion can be attributed to automatic economic stabilizers.
As the economy enters recession, certain spending programs, such as unemployment insurance and food stamps, automatically increase and revenues tend to decline. Although this helps to ameliorate the economic downturn by stimulating demand, it also leads to higher deficits.
Finally, there is the Recovery Act which accounts for just 10 percent of the entire deficit over the next decade.
All told, the entire $9 trillion deficit reflects the failure to pay for policies in the past and the cost of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and the steps we had to take to combat it.
Now, assigning blame never solves a problem, but it is important to understand that we didn’t get where we are merely as a result of bad luck."
Family Security Matters » Publications » The Greatest Scam on Earth
Family Security Matters » Publications » The Greatest Scam on Earth: "In 2000, Al Gore was a failed Presidential candidate with a paltry $2 million to his name. Not a lot of money for a guy whose lavish mansion gobbles up almost $150,000 dollars alone in electric utilities annually, and that, of course, is before property taxes
and all the other costs of owning a home in Belle Meade, which has one of the region's highest costs of living. But besides growing a beard and lecturing college students on journalism, a hobby he had last practiced in the ‘70s, Al Gore didn't have much of a career plan.
But Gore didn't starve on the streets either, and eight years later, despite not having much in the way of a job, the former Vice President is worth over $100,000,000. Expanding your net worth by 2,500 percent sounds like the Madoff investment plan, but the scam that Al Gore invested in is one that makes Madoff look like a piker... because Gore invested in The Greatest Scam on Earth.
The Greatest Scam on Earth naturally revolves around the earth itself, combining millennial apocalyptic visions with junk science to create global warming. In 1920 the American poet Robert Frost wrote, 'Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice, From what I've tasted of desire, I hold with those who favor fire.' Taking an incomplete cue from poem, the school of environmental apocalypse first tried to sell the idea of an ice age, before switching over to global warming.
In the ‘70s the talk was of a coming ice age:"
and all the other costs of owning a home in Belle Meade, which has one of the region's highest costs of living. But besides growing a beard and lecturing college students on journalism, a hobby he had last practiced in the ‘70s, Al Gore didn't have much of a career plan.
But Gore didn't starve on the streets either, and eight years later, despite not having much in the way of a job, the former Vice President is worth over $100,000,000. Expanding your net worth by 2,500 percent sounds like the Madoff investment plan, but the scam that Al Gore invested in is one that makes Madoff look like a piker... because Gore invested in The Greatest Scam on Earth.
The Greatest Scam on Earth naturally revolves around the earth itself, combining millennial apocalyptic visions with junk science to create global warming. In 1920 the American poet Robert Frost wrote, 'Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice, From what I've tasted of desire, I hold with those who favor fire.' Taking an incomplete cue from poem, the school of environmental apocalypse first tried to sell the idea of an ice age, before switching over to global warming.
In the ‘70s the talk was of a coming ice age:"
Family Security Matters » Publications » Fort Hood: The Largest ‘Terror Act’ Since 9/11
Family Security Matters » Publications » Fort Hood: The Largest ‘Terror Act’ Since 9/11: "The Fort Hood killings, perpetrated by Major Malik Nadal Hasan, a psychiatric doctor by training, no matter what the judiciary reports will conclude is, for now, the largest single Terror act in America since 9/11. This quantitative finding will take into consideration dramatic change in the data released by authorities. However the most important matter now is not to fail in our analysis of the motives. This is not an issue of sheer frustration because of foreign policy or revenge for racist slurs, nor this is an issue of simply being a Muslim American or a member of any faith. This is an issue of radicalization of individuals by an extremist ideology, Jjhadism, which fuels acts of terror. And the main question should be, when did Hasan radicalize and who indoctrinated him? Everything else will fall in place once we have these answers. Moreover, this would allow us to detect other potential terror acts that may be in the making.
The shooting inside a U.S. military installation that led to the killing of many personnel compels us to ponder. Over the past few years and months authorities have stopped attempts on similar attacks. The Fort Dix jihadi plot, dismantled in 2006, aimed at performing a killing of military personnel inside the base. Other cells, dismantled in Georgia, New York and North Carolina also had plans for attacking military installations on US soil. But more importantly a number of lone wolves have also expressed intentions to attack military personnel."
The shooting inside a U.S. military installation that led to the killing of many personnel compels us to ponder. Over the past few years and months authorities have stopped attempts on similar attacks. The Fort Dix jihadi plot, dismantled in 2006, aimed at performing a killing of military personnel inside the base. Other cells, dismantled in Georgia, New York and North Carolina also had plans for attacking military installations on US soil. But more importantly a number of lone wolves have also expressed intentions to attack military personnel."
Family Security Matters » Publications » Five Major Faults with the Health Care Bills
Family Security Matters » Publications » Five Major Faults with the Health Care Bills: "Current efforts by Congress to 'reform' the health care system are centered on several flawed policy initiatives that will transfer more power and decisions to Washington and away from patients and families.
Rather than create a massive government-based health care system and dislocate people from their existing private coverage, policymakers should focus on putting the health care system on a path where individuals and families are in control of their health care dollars and decisions.
Shortfalls of the Health Care Bills
The following five provisions are the cornerstone of the House and Senate bills and unavoidably result in legislation taking health care reform in the wrong direction.
1. New Public Plan and Federal Exchange. Both the House and Senate bills would create a new government-run health care plan through the establishment of a federally run national health insurance exchange. The result: widespread erosion of private insurance and substantial consolidation of federal control over health care through the exchange.[1] As is evident in the details of the House bill (H.R. 3200), there is no level playing field for competition between the government plans and private health plans. Plus, the incentives in the legislation guarantee that millions of Americans will lose their existing employer-based coverage.
2. Federal Regulation of Health Insurance. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. Moreover, it would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington.[2]"
Rather than create a massive government-based health care system and dislocate people from their existing private coverage, policymakers should focus on putting the health care system on a path where individuals and families are in control of their health care dollars and decisions.
Shortfalls of the Health Care Bills
The following five provisions are the cornerstone of the House and Senate bills and unavoidably result in legislation taking health care reform in the wrong direction.
1. New Public Plan and Federal Exchange. Both the House and Senate bills would create a new government-run health care plan through the establishment of a federally run national health insurance exchange. The result: widespread erosion of private insurance and substantial consolidation of federal control over health care through the exchange.[1] As is evident in the details of the House bill (H.R. 3200), there is no level playing field for competition between the government plans and private health plans. Plus, the incentives in the legislation guarantee that millions of Americans will lose their existing employer-based coverage.
2. Federal Regulation of Health Insurance. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. Moreover, it would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington.[2]"
Obamacare’s Biggest Victims: The Young » The Foundry
Obamacare’s Biggest Victims: The Young » The Foundry: "Cato Adjunct Scholar Aaron Yelowitz reports:
Health care proposals moving through Congress would force most or all Americans to purchase health insurance (an “individual mandate”) and would impose price controls on health insurance (“community rating”) that would limit insurers’ ability to offer lower premiums to low-risk enrollees.
Those provisions would drive premiums down for 55-year-olds but would drive them up for 25-year-olds—who are then implicitly subsidizing older adults. According to the Urban Institute, many young people could see their premiums double, whereas premiums for older adults could be cut in half.
Read the whole report, here."
Health care proposals moving through Congress would force most or all Americans to purchase health insurance (an “individual mandate”) and would impose price controls on health insurance (“community rating”) that would limit insurers’ ability to offer lower premiums to low-risk enrollees.
Those provisions would drive premiums down for 55-year-olds but would drive them up for 25-year-olds—who are then implicitly subsidizing older adults. According to the Urban Institute, many young people could see their premiums double, whereas premiums for older adults could be cut in half.
Read the whole report, here."
Our Choice or Al Gore’s Choice? » The Foundry
Our Choice or Al Gore’s Choice? » The Foundry: "Al Gore has had a busy week. First, the former vice president’s renewable energy investments received some serious backing from the taxpayer as $3.4 billion stimulus package would be allocated for smart grid investment. $560 million went to Silver Spring Networks, a company Gore’s venture capitalist firm invested in, that makes hardware and software to improve efficiency in the nation’s electricity grid. That’s not the only way Gore is profiting from the global warming debate. On November 3rd he published his new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, which details the need for more wind, solar and biofuels, improved energy efficiency and the use of offsets and trees to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere – among other things.
Gore stresses that the cost of doing nothing is much higher than any dire economic projections that would result from capping greenhouse gas emissions, or as Gore likes to call it, “global warming pollution.” To gain support, Gore paints pictures of rising sea levels that will swallow up islands and devastate the global economy. But this “opportunity cost” of doing nothing must be discounted by the actual effect the “doing something” will have. Doing something like cap-and-trade, does not mitigate climate change entirely, if at all, and therefore the (negative) opportunity foregone (i.e., the expected climate change) is not the full benefit.
We have to look at how much climate change Waxman-Markey is expected to mitigate. As Heritage analyst David Kreutzer says, “We need to look at the cost of these proposals in light of what difference these proposals make. None of the proposals will entirely eliminate predicted climate change regardless of the assumptions, models, computers or theories used.”"
Gore stresses that the cost of doing nothing is much higher than any dire economic projections that would result from capping greenhouse gas emissions, or as Gore likes to call it, “global warming pollution.” To gain support, Gore paints pictures of rising sea levels that will swallow up islands and devastate the global economy. But this “opportunity cost” of doing nothing must be discounted by the actual effect the “doing something” will have. Doing something like cap-and-trade, does not mitigate climate change entirely, if at all, and therefore the (negative) opportunity foregone (i.e., the expected climate change) is not the full benefit.
We have to look at how much climate change Waxman-Markey is expected to mitigate. As Heritage analyst David Kreutzer says, “We need to look at the cost of these proposals in light of what difference these proposals make. None of the proposals will entirely eliminate predicted climate change regardless of the assumptions, models, computers or theories used.”"
House Democrat: Pelosi Plan Raises Taxes And Funds Abortion » The Foundry
House Democrat: Pelosi Plan Raises Taxes And Funds Abortion » The Foundry: "Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK) tells the New York Times:
The worst thing we could do in a recession is raise taxes, and this bill does just that. … Finally, I do not believe that the possibility for taxpayer-funded abortion has been clearly and emphatically removed from this legislation.
Boren is dead on. The House bill raises taxes by $700 billion at a time when our unemployment rate is already 10.2%.
And contrary to the President’s promise, the current House bill also enables taxpayer funding for elective abortions.
No wonder Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) refuses to let House Democrats go home and listen to their constituents before voting on her health bill."
The worst thing we could do in a recession is raise taxes, and this bill does just that. … Finally, I do not believe that the possibility for taxpayer-funded abortion has been clearly and emphatically removed from this legislation.
Boren is dead on. The House bill raises taxes by $700 billion at a time when our unemployment rate is already 10.2%.
And contrary to the President’s promise, the current House bill also enables taxpayer funding for elective abortions.
No wonder Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) refuses to let House Democrats go home and listen to their constituents before voting on her health bill."
Pelosi’s Procedural Plan to Pass Health Care » The Foundry
Pelosi’s Procedural Plan to Pass Health Care » The Foundry: "Today at 2pm the House Rules Committee will meet to consider the rule for H.R. 3962 , the Affordable Health Care for America Act. As of this morning 104 amendments had been filed with the Rules Committee for consideration. Republican’s have filed 87 amendments and Democrats have filed 17. The debate in the Rules Committee and a final vote could continue well into this evening.
The rule being debated today will not only cover HR 3962 but will also apply to HR 3961, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act, also known as the Doc Fix. This is a procedural gimmick that allows the costly Doc Fix bill to be combined with H.R. 3962 after the bill passes the House. This allows Congressional Leaders to avoid a stand alone vote on Doc Fix in the Senate. A few weeks ago, a $247 billion dollar Doc Fix bill failed in the Senate with 13 Democrats opposing ending debate on the bill.
Also included in the amendments filed with the Rules Committee is an Amendment by Congressman Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) in an attempt to provide a compromise so that no federal funding would be allowed for abortion services and all Americans would have access to at least one plan that does not cover abortions. This language is not strong enough for many pro-life groups, yet it may allow for enough of the democrats in the House Pro-Life Caucus to support the compromise. If a compromise is reached that allows Pelosi to satisfy pro-life Democrats it will be included in the Rule and not receive additional floor debate or a stand alone vote by Members not on the Rules Committee."
The rule being debated today will not only cover HR 3962 but will also apply to HR 3961, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act, also known as the Doc Fix. This is a procedural gimmick that allows the costly Doc Fix bill to be combined with H.R. 3962 after the bill passes the House. This allows Congressional Leaders to avoid a stand alone vote on Doc Fix in the Senate. A few weeks ago, a $247 billion dollar Doc Fix bill failed in the Senate with 13 Democrats opposing ending debate on the bill.
Also included in the amendments filed with the Rules Committee is an Amendment by Congressman Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) in an attempt to provide a compromise so that no federal funding would be allowed for abortion services and all Americans would have access to at least one plan that does not cover abortions. This language is not strong enough for many pro-life groups, yet it may allow for enough of the democrats in the House Pro-Life Caucus to support the compromise. If a compromise is reached that allows Pelosi to satisfy pro-life Democrats it will be included in the Rule and not receive additional floor debate or a stand alone vote by Members not on the Rules Committee."
Behind Closed Doors: The Obamacare Arm Twisting Begins » The Foundry
Behind Closed Doors: The Obamacare Arm Twisting Begins » The Foundry: "The heat is happening behind closed doors as the U.S. House prepares for a Saturday showdown vote on health care. Access is everything. By keeping Members of Congress in Washington, D.C., this weekend, Democratic leaders keep them away from angry constituents back in their home states, where the Members normally would depart from Friday to Monday. (Note: The tactics aren’t different from what Republicans sometimes used when they held the majority.)
The first step is to keep Congress in town. The second is to keep them monitored and available for whenever leaders want to summons them for backroom meetings—sometimes to discuss and sometimes to pressure and browbeat and offer deals. A “buddy system” is sometimes assigned so a fellow Congressman from the party’s whip team keeps tab on each undecided member’s whereabouts, their cell and other private phone numbers, the places they tend to hangout between votes, and similar information.
Members don’t like to be found and pressured. As one speaker noted at Thursday’s “House Call” tea party event at the U.S. Capitol: “There may be some members hiding right now. They may be in the basement. They may be in the cafeteria, pretending they’re not a Congressman.”
So special gatherings are created, not only to communicate but also to attract the reluctant to join their party’s herd. Then they can be culled out by party leaders for individual attention, much as a sheepdog picks out individual sheep from a flock.
That’s one benefit of scheduling a group meeting with President Obama, as party leaders have set for Saturday. It’s also a reason for scheduling other votes on the House floor, to flush individuals out of hiding and work them over. It’s common for members to rush into the chamber, cast a vote, and try to rush out before they’re caught. So multiple votes are scheduled."
The first step is to keep Congress in town. The second is to keep them monitored and available for whenever leaders want to summons them for backroom meetings—sometimes to discuss and sometimes to pressure and browbeat and offer deals. A “buddy system” is sometimes assigned so a fellow Congressman from the party’s whip team keeps tab on each undecided member’s whereabouts, their cell and other private phone numbers, the places they tend to hangout between votes, and similar information.
Members don’t like to be found and pressured. As one speaker noted at Thursday’s “House Call” tea party event at the U.S. Capitol: “There may be some members hiding right now. They may be in the basement. They may be in the cafeteria, pretending they’re not a Congressman.”
So special gatherings are created, not only to communicate but also to attract the reluctant to join their party’s herd. Then they can be culled out by party leaders for individual attention, much as a sheepdog picks out individual sheep from a flock.
That’s one benefit of scheduling a group meeting with President Obama, as party leaders have set for Saturday. It’s also a reason for scheduling other votes on the House floor, to flush individuals out of hiding and work them over. It’s common for members to rush into the chamber, cast a vote, and try to rush out before they’re caught. So multiple votes are scheduled."
What Superman and Barack Obama Don’t Have in Common » The Foundry
What Superman and Barack Obama Don’t Have in Common » The Foundry
When Superman rescued a small boy who was plummeting toward the depths of Niagara Falls, it was pretty clear that the kid was in danger and that, but for Superman’s ability to fly, the boy would have faced certain death. It goes without saying that if the boy were not in danger, Clark Kent wouldn’t have donned his cape and flown to the rescue.
Well, back to the surreality of modern American politics, it appears that the purported success of President Barack Obama’s Super Stimulus is as fictional as the Man of Steel, but many of the jobs that Obama claimed to save weren’t in need of rescue.
That, of course, didn’t stop his administration from playing hero in California and taking credit for saving some 26,156 jobs, all at the cost of $268.5 million.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)