From Yahoo News: FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat
WASHINGTON – Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry.
In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."
Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones. [Click to read]
Once again, the Obama administration is creating strawman "enemies"--he really learned from Mussolini!
From CNN: Bank failures stack up: Now 106 for 2009
Banks in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin, were shuttered, costing the FDIC an estimated $356.6 million.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The tally of bank failures easily broke past the No. 100 milestone on Friday night, with regulators announcing the year's 106th closure.
That's more than four times the number that were closed in 2008, and the highest total since 1992, when 181 banks failed. [Click to read story]
Still more fallout from the Clinton era--pushing banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back--all in the name of "racial equity." If you remember, the Bush administration tried multiple times to fix this, but were blocked by the Democrat Party--especially Barney Franks--from doing anything! Now we're in the worst economy since the one that Carter caused.
We're still better off than the Carter Recession, though. Remember 20% inflation with 10% unemployment? I sure wish the news media would quit calling the current recession the "worst economy since the great depression." It's an outright lie!
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Pay Czar Acting Independently of President
Pay Czar Feinberg, Not Obama, Behind Decision to Slash Executive Pay
White House pay czar Kenneth Feinberg was the driving force behind the move to order steep pay cuts from bailed-out executives, and did not even seek the president's approval before making his decision.
Under the plan, at the financial products division of AIG, the giant insurance company which has received taxpayer assistance valued at more than $180 billion, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, one person familiar with Feinberg's plan said. [Click to read more]
Bush's Czars were advisors only. They did not have the power to act independently of confirmed cabinet members or the president. Obama has given his czars totally unprecedented power!
Besides the fact that what the Pay Czar is doing is absolutely illegal, $200,000 maximum salary for companies that size is absolutely ridiculous! Engineers, Nurse Anesthetists, and some salespersons make close to that much, without having the responsibility of having charge of corporate decision making. How will they attract even competent talent? I certainly wouldn't work in a job in that position without proper compensation.
White House pay czar Kenneth Feinberg was the driving force behind the move to order steep pay cuts from bailed-out executives, and did not even seek the president's approval before making his decision.
Under the plan, at the financial products division of AIG, the giant insurance company which has received taxpayer assistance valued at more than $180 billion, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, one person familiar with Feinberg's plan said. [Click to read more]
Bush's Czars were advisors only. They did not have the power to act independently of confirmed cabinet members or the president. Obama has given his czars totally unprecedented power!
Besides the fact that what the Pay Czar is doing is absolutely illegal, $200,000 maximum salary for companies that size is absolutely ridiculous! Engineers, Nurse Anesthetists, and some salespersons make close to that much, without having the responsibility of having charge of corporate decision making. How will they attract even competent talent? I certainly wouldn't work in a job in that position without proper compensation.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Controlling the Media
Top White House Official Says Obama Team 'Controlled' Media Coverage During Campaign
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn is seen in a video from January talking about how the Obama campaign exercised absolute "control" over media coverage. [Click to watch]
The Obama campaign's press strategy leading up to his election last November focused on "making" the media cover what the campaign wanted and on exercising absolute "control" over coverage, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told an overseas crowd early this year. [Click to read]
Is this simply a brilliant campaign strategy, or part of an overall attempt to suppress free speech? Now they're trying to set the stage to control talk radio, minimize the impact of FOX News, and belittling the other networks who are reporting about FOX. Where will it end?
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn is seen in a video from January talking about how the Obama campaign exercised absolute "control" over media coverage. [Click to watch]
The Obama campaign's press strategy leading up to his election last November focused on "making" the media cover what the campaign wanted and on exercising absolute "control" over coverage, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told an overseas crowd early this year. [Click to read]
Is this simply a brilliant campaign strategy, or part of an overall attempt to suppress free speech? Now they're trying to set the stage to control talk radio, minimize the impact of FOX News, and belittling the other networks who are reporting about FOX. Where will it end?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Public Option, Tort Reform
From CNN: Harkin: Final health care bill will have public option
Sen. Tom Harkin promised Friday that a health care bill will be on President Obama's desk before Christmas.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, the Democrat who chairs one of the Senate committees tasked with developing health care legislation, promised Friday that a health care bill will be on President Obama's desk before Christmas and will include a so-called "public option." [Click to read]
Is he sure? I heard that there are at least five Democrats that are holding out? Are they going to strong-arm them into voting for it?
Tort reform could save $54 billion, Congressional Budget Office says
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office is now estimating that limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- reforms favored by many Republicans -- could save the government as much as $54 billion over the next 10 years.
The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year.
A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent, according to a report from the nonpartisan office issued late last week. [Click to read]
Why not do it? And for doctors who are repeatedly found guilty of malpractice, remove their license? It works for Professional Engineers!
Sen. Tom Harkin promised Friday that a health care bill will be on President Obama's desk before Christmas.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, the Democrat who chairs one of the Senate committees tasked with developing health care legislation, promised Friday that a health care bill will be on President Obama's desk before Christmas and will include a so-called "public option." [Click to read]
Is he sure? I heard that there are at least five Democrats that are holding out? Are they going to strong-arm them into voting for it?
Tort reform could save $54 billion, Congressional Budget Office says
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office is now estimating that limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- reforms favored by many Republicans -- could save the government as much as $54 billion over the next 10 years.
The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year.
A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent, according to a report from the nonpartisan office issued late last week. [Click to read]
Why not do it? And for doctors who are repeatedly found guilty of malpractice, remove their license? It works for Professional Engineers!
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Health Insurance Reform & White House vs. Fox News
From FOXNews: White House Escalates War of Words With Fox News
Anita Dunn, White House communications director, calls Fox News a "wing of the Republican Party," after the White House began using its government blog to criticize "Fox lies."
Calling Fox News "a wing of the Republican Party," the Obama administration on Sunday escalated its war of words against the channel, even as observers questioned the wisdom of a White House war on a news organization.
Call the wambulance! This is one argument no administration can win. Politicians shouldn't criticize news organizations, period. If they want to disagree with a story, then that's perfectly fine. Otherwise, it smacks of censoring!
From FOXNews: 17-Pound, 4-Month-Old Baby Denied Health Insurance for Being Too Fat
Nothing brings a smile to an adult's face quicker than the sight of a happy, chubby baby.
But the sight of 4-month-old Alex Lange, who measures 25-inches long and weighs 17 pounds, is bringing a frown to the hypothetical face of insurance company Rocky Mountain Health Plans, The Denver Post reported on its Web site Monday.
What? This is ridiculous! Insurance companies (or the legalized Mafia, as my dad called them) need to be reigned in! We need an insurance tune-up to take care of "stuff" like this. However, let's not go too far and replace the whole car!
From CNN: Insurers, White House square off over reform bill
An insurance industry trade group says premiums for a typical American family would rise by thousands of dollars under a Senate overhaul plan. But the White House blasted the report as inaccurate. "This is a self-serving analysis from the insurance industry, one of the major opponents of health insurance reform," White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said. The bill is set for a vote today in the Senate Finance Committee.
Are they right, or are they being self-serving? Or perhaps both are true!
Anita Dunn, White House communications director, calls Fox News a "wing of the Republican Party," after the White House began using its government blog to criticize "Fox lies."
Calling Fox News "a wing of the Republican Party," the Obama administration on Sunday escalated its war of words against the channel, even as observers questioned the wisdom of a White House war on a news organization.
Call the wambulance! This is one argument no administration can win. Politicians shouldn't criticize news organizations, period. If they want to disagree with a story, then that's perfectly fine. Otherwise, it smacks of censoring!
From FOXNews: 17-Pound, 4-Month-Old Baby Denied Health Insurance for Being Too Fat
Nothing brings a smile to an adult's face quicker than the sight of a happy, chubby baby.
But the sight of 4-month-old Alex Lange, who measures 25-inches long and weighs 17 pounds, is bringing a frown to the hypothetical face of insurance company Rocky Mountain Health Plans, The Denver Post reported on its Web site Monday.
What? This is ridiculous! Insurance companies (or the legalized Mafia, as my dad called them) need to be reigned in! We need an insurance tune-up to take care of "stuff" like this. However, let's not go too far and replace the whole car!
From CNN: Insurers, White House square off over reform bill
An insurance industry trade group says premiums for a typical American family would rise by thousands of dollars under a Senate overhaul plan. But the White House blasted the report as inaccurate. "This is a self-serving analysis from the insurance industry, one of the major opponents of health insurance reform," White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said. The bill is set for a vote today in the Senate Finance Committee.
Are they right, or are they being self-serving? Or perhaps both are true!
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Supreme Court Cases in the News
From CNN: High court debates dog fighting videos
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court voiced deep free speech concerns Tuesday about a law designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dog fights and other acts of animal cruelty. Selling depictions of animal cruelty like this amateur dogfighting video may be illegal under a 1999 statute.
The justices heard an hour of lively debate about the scope and intent of the decade-old statute that supporters say has done much to stop the spread of profiting from the torture and abuse of animals. But media groups and the National Rifle Association were among those who say the law is overly broad. [Read full story]
Seems like the law, which was written with good intentions at preventing cruelty, is unintentionally too far-reaching. It would even prevent news reports and documentaries. The Supreme Court needs to clarify the limits of the law without striking it down completely.
From FOX News: High Court Takes Up Case of Cross on Public Land
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court is taking up a long-running legal fight over a cross honoring World War I soldiers that has stood for 75 years on public land in a remote part of California.
The cross, on an outcrop known as Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve, has been covered in plywood for the past several years following federal court rulings that it violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.
The justices were to hear arguments Wednesday in a case the court could use to make an important statement about its view of the separation of church and state. The Obama administration is defending the presence of the cross, which court papers describe as being 5 to 8 feet tall. [Read full story]
The 9th Circuit Court is the one that caused this trouble. It's historical and could set extreme precedent if not overturned. Also, how many times has the Supreme Court ruled ALREADY on cases like this one? And always in favor of letting the symbol remain! The 9th Circuit Court is just wasting our tax dollars by ignoring established precedent.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court voiced deep free speech concerns Tuesday about a law designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dog fights and other acts of animal cruelty. Selling depictions of animal cruelty like this amateur dogfighting video may be illegal under a 1999 statute.
The justices heard an hour of lively debate about the scope and intent of the decade-old statute that supporters say has done much to stop the spread of profiting from the torture and abuse of animals. But media groups and the National Rifle Association were among those who say the law is overly broad. [Read full story]
Seems like the law, which was written with good intentions at preventing cruelty, is unintentionally too far-reaching. It would even prevent news reports and documentaries. The Supreme Court needs to clarify the limits of the law without striking it down completely.
From FOX News: High Court Takes Up Case of Cross on Public Land
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court is taking up a long-running legal fight over a cross honoring World War I soldiers that has stood for 75 years on public land in a remote part of California.
The cross, on an outcrop known as Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve, has been covered in plywood for the past several years following federal court rulings that it violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.
The justices were to hear arguments Wednesday in a case the court could use to make an important statement about its view of the separation of church and state. The Obama administration is defending the presence of the cross, which court papers describe as being 5 to 8 feet tall. [Read full story]
The 9th Circuit Court is the one that caused this trouble. It's historical and could set extreme precedent if not overturned. Also, how many times has the Supreme Court ruled ALREADY on cases like this one? And always in favor of letting the symbol remain! The 9th Circuit Court is just wasting our tax dollars by ignoring established precedent.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Afghanistan and Iran
From USA Today: Musharraf: U.S. Afghanistan pullout would be 'disastrous'
By Tony Leys, The Des Moines Register
DES MOINES — Americans need to prepare for the likelihood that more U.S. troops will be needed in Afghanistan and that they will be there many years, the former president of neighboring Pakistan said in Iowa Saturday.
Pervez Musharraf, who resigned under pressure last year, said it would be "disastrous" for the United States to pull out of Afghanistan now. If the Taliban are allowed to return to power, he said, they surely would allow al-Qaeda terrorists to rebuild strength in Afghanistan, destabilizing the region and posing a major threat to the United States.
The only solution, he said, is for international troops, led by the United States, to establish military dominance in Afghanistan and gain the trust of people there so a long-term political solution can be formed. [Click here to read full story]
We could be there for the long haul. I tend to agree with Musharraf on this one. But, it's going to take a lot of strength, courage, and guts on the part of our people to support this. I don't think it's there. We may end up pulling out too soon and paying for it later.
I'm including an opposing view below.
From Christian Science Monitor: Forget Afghanistan. Let's nation-build at home first.
By Walter Rodgers Walter Rodgers – Fri Oct 2, 5:00 am ET
East Otis, Mass. – The assessment of the war in Afghanistan from the top US general there is grim. Without more troops, Stanley McChrystal warned in a report that was leaked recently, "The conflict will likely result in failure."
His candor should be applauded. It gives President Obama and the American public – nearly half of whom now oppose the war there – an opportunity to ask themselves how we are going to save Afghanistan when we have not figured out how to engage in successful nation-building at home. [Click here to read the full story]
His base assumptions are faulty: We have freedom here and are not engaged in an internal war where factions kill each other with extreme regularity! Our "stability factor" is very high compared to Afghanistan--they need to be brought up closer to it.
From USA Today: U.N. nuke authority to inspect Iranian facility this month
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday there is a "shifting of gears" in Iran's confrontation with the West to more cooperation and transparency and he announced that international inspectors would visit Tehran's newly revealed uranium enrichment site on Oct. 25.
The International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, speaking at a joint news conference in Tehran with Iran's top nuclear official, said his agency "has no concrete proof of an ongoing weapons program in Iran." But the IAEA has "concerns about Iran's future intentions," he said. [Click here to read full story]
So Iran is going from confrontation to cooperation. Good! I believe the only reason that the Iranian government is agreeing is that they know the people will rebel if the inspectors aren't let in and they're threatened with a war. According to recent polls, the Iranian people are at least 80% pro-western and want democracy and peace with us. And we don't need to go to war with a people that likes us. If the government doesn't cooperate, we should support the people in an uprising.
By Tony Leys, The Des Moines Register
DES MOINES — Americans need to prepare for the likelihood that more U.S. troops will be needed in Afghanistan and that they will be there many years, the former president of neighboring Pakistan said in Iowa Saturday.
Pervez Musharraf, who resigned under pressure last year, said it would be "disastrous" for the United States to pull out of Afghanistan now. If the Taliban are allowed to return to power, he said, they surely would allow al-Qaeda terrorists to rebuild strength in Afghanistan, destabilizing the region and posing a major threat to the United States.
The only solution, he said, is for international troops, led by the United States, to establish military dominance in Afghanistan and gain the trust of people there so a long-term political solution can be formed. [Click here to read full story]
We could be there for the long haul. I tend to agree with Musharraf on this one. But, it's going to take a lot of strength, courage, and guts on the part of our people to support this. I don't think it's there. We may end up pulling out too soon and paying for it later.
I'm including an opposing view below.
From Christian Science Monitor: Forget Afghanistan. Let's nation-build at home first.
By Walter Rodgers Walter Rodgers – Fri Oct 2, 5:00 am ET
East Otis, Mass. – The assessment of the war in Afghanistan from the top US general there is grim. Without more troops, Stanley McChrystal warned in a report that was leaked recently, "The conflict will likely result in failure."
His candor should be applauded. It gives President Obama and the American public – nearly half of whom now oppose the war there – an opportunity to ask themselves how we are going to save Afghanistan when we have not figured out how to engage in successful nation-building at home. [Click here to read the full story]
His base assumptions are faulty: We have freedom here and are not engaged in an internal war where factions kill each other with extreme regularity! Our "stability factor" is very high compared to Afghanistan--they need to be brought up closer to it.
From USA Today: U.N. nuke authority to inspect Iranian facility this month
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday there is a "shifting of gears" in Iran's confrontation with the West to more cooperation and transparency and he announced that international inspectors would visit Tehran's newly revealed uranium enrichment site on Oct. 25.
The International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, speaking at a joint news conference in Tehran with Iran's top nuclear official, said his agency "has no concrete proof of an ongoing weapons program in Iran." But the IAEA has "concerns about Iran's future intentions," he said. [Click here to read full story]
So Iran is going from confrontation to cooperation. Good! I believe the only reason that the Iranian government is agreeing is that they know the people will rebel if the inspectors aren't let in and they're threatened with a war. According to recent polls, the Iranian people are at least 80% pro-western and want democracy and peace with us. And we don't need to go to war with a people that likes us. If the government doesn't cooperate, we should support the people in an uprising.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Gay Divorce, Afghanistan and the Olympics in Chicago
From the AP: Texas Judge Clears Way for Gay Divorce
DALLAS — A Texas judge cleared the way for two Dallas men to get a divorce, ruling Thursday that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he'd appeal the ruling, which he labeled an attempt to strike down the ban approved by voters in 2005.
"The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman," Abbott said in a written statement. "Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition — despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters." [Click to read the entire article]
The judge said she's basing the decision on Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Are we stuck with this? Or is there a way out? There is.
The Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton) says we don't have to accept gay marriage if our state doesn't want to. AND the Constitution says, "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." This gives them the right to do so.
The State judge is therefore trying to overrule a federal law. She is clearly out of her jurisdiction. Only federeal courts can rule on this matter.
My Opinion--Afghanistan and the Olympics in Chicago
The president said in his campaign speeches that Afghanistan was where we should concentrate to fight terrorism and he promised to build up our troops there. Yet now he says that it will take up to six weeks to review the request for additional troops. This week, he flew to Europe with Oprah to campaign before the Olympic Committee for Chicago. This could at least have knocked off a few days on the Afghanistan review!
Where are your priorities, Mr. President? We have a record number of people DYING in Afghanistan, yet you're worried about SPORTS? Come on!
DALLAS — A Texas judge cleared the way for two Dallas men to get a divorce, ruling Thursday that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he'd appeal the ruling, which he labeled an attempt to strike down the ban approved by voters in 2005.
"The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman," Abbott said in a written statement. "Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition — despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters." [Click to read the entire article]
The judge said she's basing the decision on Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Are we stuck with this? Or is there a way out? There is.
The Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton) says we don't have to accept gay marriage if our state doesn't want to. AND the Constitution says, "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." This gives them the right to do so.
The State judge is therefore trying to overrule a federal law. She is clearly out of her jurisdiction. Only federeal courts can rule on this matter.
My Opinion--Afghanistan and the Olympics in Chicago
The president said in his campaign speeches that Afghanistan was where we should concentrate to fight terrorism and he promised to build up our troops there. Yet now he says that it will take up to six weeks to review the request for additional troops. This week, he flew to Europe with Oprah to campaign before the Olympic Committee for Chicago. This could at least have knocked off a few days on the Afghanistan review!
Where are your priorities, Mr. President? We have a record number of people DYING in Afghanistan, yet you're worried about SPORTS? Come on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)