Obama to Propose Limits on Insurance Rates
WASHINGTON -- President Obama is making a fresh attempt to rescue his health care overhaul by proposing a measure that would allow the government to deny or roll back egregious insurance premium increases that infuriate consumers.
Coming just days before a White House health care summit with congressional leaders of both parties, Obama's new legislative proposal, which will be unveiled later Monday, likely represents the president's last chance to salvage his signature issue.
A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity because details have not yet been officially released, said the insurance rate proposal would give the federal Health and Human Services Department -- in conjunction with state authorities -- the power to deny substantial premium increases, limit them, or demand rebates for consumers. [Click to read more]
The average insurance company makes a measely 4% profit. That's about the worst return of any type of company! This proposal of Obama's will drive insurance companies out of business and directly into government hands, just the way Il Duce* Obama wants.
*For those of you in Rio Linda, Il Duce was the nickname of Mussolini, the leader of the Fascist Party of Italy, an ally of Nazi Germany. Fascism is a socialist form of government where all businesses are controlled by the government. They also seek to silence the opposition by setting controls on the media, demonizing all other views, and totally ignoring input from any other political parties. Sound familiar?
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Monday, February 22, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
$1.1 Trillion in New Taxes? Come on, Mr. President!
Obama Budget Seeks $1.1 Trillion in Tax Hikes
WASHINGTON -- While President Barack Obama is proposing to cut some taxes for companies that hire workers, his budget would raise a host of other taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals.
The budget proposal released Monday would extend Obama's signature Making Work Pay tax credit -- $400 for individuals, $800 for a couple filing jointly -- through 2011. But it would also impose nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes on couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 by not renewing tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush. Obama would extend Bush-era tax cuts for families and individuals making less. [Click to read story]
Imposing more taxes on "wealthy" couples will mean:
(1) Less investment in businesses. Therefore, more unemployment.
(2) Not hiring as many housekeepers, drivers, lawns people. Therefore, more unemployment.
(3) Not spending as much for goods. Therefore, more unemployment.
On the other hand, with all these new taxes, the government can afford to put more people on unemployment and welfare.
Sounds like a great idea all the way around!
WASHINGTON -- While President Barack Obama is proposing to cut some taxes for companies that hire workers, his budget would raise a host of other taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals.
The budget proposal released Monday would extend Obama's signature Making Work Pay tax credit -- $400 for individuals, $800 for a couple filing jointly -- through 2011. But it would also impose nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes on couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 by not renewing tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush. Obama would extend Bush-era tax cuts for families and individuals making less. [Click to read story]
Imposing more taxes on "wealthy" couples will mean:
(1) Less investment in businesses. Therefore, more unemployment.
(2) Not hiring as many housekeepers, drivers, lawns people. Therefore, more unemployment.
(3) Not spending as much for goods. Therefore, more unemployment.
On the other hand, with all these new taxes, the government can afford to put more people on unemployment and welfare.
Sounds like a great idea all the way around!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
State of the Obamanation & More on Climategate
OBAMA SPANKS THE SUPREME COURT
Obama once again showed his disdain for the Constitution by spanking the Supreme Court in his first State of the Union. The Court had overturned several unconstitutional laws that have been around for quite a while, as well as parts of the McCain-Feingold act.
This was not the forum to disagree about campaign finance reform. A press conference or weekly radio address would have been much more appropriate. Besides, how much of Obama's money came from foreign interests? We may never know, since much of it was contributed in cash by people with false names and addresses. Also, a significant portion came through the internet and is not verifiable. Obama has opened himself up to a lot of criticism for this hypocrisy.
Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data
The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.
The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. [Click to read more from the "Times of London"]
Yup. UEA was clearly breaking the law, and the scientists were being unethical--that is, they were lying about data and hiding it to cover their tracks. Why? Probably to steal more taxpayer money for bogus research. Well, now they've been found out. They all need to be sacked and prevented from doing research ever again! They have damaged the reputation of the scientific method.
Obama once again showed his disdain for the Constitution by spanking the Supreme Court in his first State of the Union. The Court had overturned several unconstitutional laws that have been around for quite a while, as well as parts of the McCain-Feingold act.
This was not the forum to disagree about campaign finance reform. A press conference or weekly radio address would have been much more appropriate. Besides, how much of Obama's money came from foreign interests? We may never know, since much of it was contributed in cash by people with false names and addresses. Also, a significant portion came through the internet and is not verifiable. Obama has opened himself up to a lot of criticism for this hypocrisy.
Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data
The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.
The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. [Click to read more from the "Times of London"]
Yup. UEA was clearly breaking the law, and the scientists were being unethical--that is, they were lying about data and hiding it to cover their tracks. Why? Probably to steal more taxpayer money for bogus research. Well, now they've been found out. They all need to be sacked and prevented from doing research ever again! They have damaged the reputation of the scientific method.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
In the News--Last Day of September
From CNN: Exptriating Illegal Alien Patients
"There is no reason why the U.S. taxpayers should have to pick up the tab- when the person is a citizen of another country- it ought to be the responsibility of that government," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for Federation for American Immigration Reform or FAIR. [Click here to read story]
We get the same treatment in other countries--try going to a hospital or emergency room in the Carribean or Europe without a credit card! They will not let you in! I've seen it.
However, is it fair? Something we'll have to debate.
From CNN: Haters of America Are Still Out There
President Obama was applauded by Castro, Chavez, and Gadhafi (no friends of ours) when he said he wanted a "new era of engagement in the world." Are either of those three dictators going to be better world citizens or kinder, gentler leaders as a result of Obama's outreach? Put me in the doubtful column. [Click here to read story]
Is our president hurting or helping our image world-wide? I think he's hurting, especially when even the French are calling us weak!
From FOXNews: Senate Committee Rejects Stronger Anti-Abortion Language in Health Care Bill
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, whose amendment lost 13 to 10, argued before the panel that tightening is needed to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion.
"I want assurances that taxpayer dollars will not be used to fund abortions," said Hatch. "Let's put specific language from my amendment into the bill." The senator argued that women should be required to purchase abortion coverage through unsubsidized, supplemental plans called "riders."
Members of the Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment Wednesday to strengthen anti-abortion provisions on the panel's sixth day of hashing out a health care reform bill.
Democratic Chairman Max Baucus of Montana said his health care bill before the Senate committee already reflects federal law, which bars funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
"This is a health care bill. This is not an abortion bill. We are not changing current law," he said. [Click here to read story]
Should life proponents push hard for this? Or is it already covered in another law? I think it's already covered. We don't need extra laws when we already have them. It makes for the potential of contradictory laws complicating things in court. What do you think?
From ABCNews: Heart-breaking, Wrong, and Not Quite Accurate
[Two health-care horror stories were shared by President Obama] at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigation hearing in June. It turns out that while it's impossible to defend the behavior of the insurance companies in either instance, the stories, as the president told them, were not accurate. [Click here to read story]
Our leaders need to get their facts straight--it happens all the time!!
From The Register: Treemometers: A new scientific scandal
Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In dendro jargon, this disparity is called "divergence". The process of creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a choice open to a scientist's biases.
In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.
At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's mystery is no more.
From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.
In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked. [Click here to read the story]
Seems that people are lying! Why? Just follow the money. How much have Al Gore and his cronies made on Global Warming? What a scam!
"There is no reason why the U.S. taxpayers should have to pick up the tab- when the person is a citizen of another country- it ought to be the responsibility of that government," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for Federation for American Immigration Reform or FAIR. [Click here to read story]
We get the same treatment in other countries--try going to a hospital or emergency room in the Carribean or Europe without a credit card! They will not let you in! I've seen it.
However, is it fair? Something we'll have to debate.
From CNN: Haters of America Are Still Out There
President Obama was applauded by Castro, Chavez, and Gadhafi (no friends of ours) when he said he wanted a "new era of engagement in the world." Are either of those three dictators going to be better world citizens or kinder, gentler leaders as a result of Obama's outreach? Put me in the doubtful column. [Click here to read story]
Is our president hurting or helping our image world-wide? I think he's hurting, especially when even the French are calling us weak!
From FOXNews: Senate Committee Rejects Stronger Anti-Abortion Language in Health Care Bill
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, whose amendment lost 13 to 10, argued before the panel that tightening is needed to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion.
"I want assurances that taxpayer dollars will not be used to fund abortions," said Hatch. "Let's put specific language from my amendment into the bill." The senator argued that women should be required to purchase abortion coverage through unsubsidized, supplemental plans called "riders."
Members of the Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment Wednesday to strengthen anti-abortion provisions on the panel's sixth day of hashing out a health care reform bill.
Democratic Chairman Max Baucus of Montana said his health care bill before the Senate committee already reflects federal law, which bars funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
"This is a health care bill. This is not an abortion bill. We are not changing current law," he said. [Click here to read story]
Should life proponents push hard for this? Or is it already covered in another law? I think it's already covered. We don't need extra laws when we already have them. It makes for the potential of contradictory laws complicating things in court. What do you think?
From ABCNews: Heart-breaking, Wrong, and Not Quite Accurate
[Two health-care horror stories were shared by President Obama] at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigation hearing in June. It turns out that while it's impossible to defend the behavior of the insurance companies in either instance, the stories, as the president told them, were not accurate. [Click here to read story]
Our leaders need to get their facts straight--it happens all the time!!
From The Register: Treemometers: A new scientific scandal
Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In dendro jargon, this disparity is called "divergence". The process of creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a choice open to a scientist's biases.
In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.
At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's mystery is no more.
From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.
In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked. [Click here to read the story]
Seems that people are lying! Why? Just follow the money. How much have Al Gore and his cronies made on Global Warming? What a scam!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Now for the Other Side
Last post, I blasted the Conservatives. This time I'll take our President to task.
Mr. President:
(1) You say that the health care "reform" needs to pass NOW to ensure the recovery. However, the bill won't take effect until 2013! This is worse than the "stimulus" bill that wasn't a stimulus bill--80% of the expenditures had nothing to do with stimulus, and 60% of of wasn't to be spent until three years down the road.
(2) You claimed that the health care "reform" bill wouldn't hurt a person's chances of getting private insurance, yet a clause in the bill prevents any new private insurance policies from being sold! Get your facts straight!
(3) You admit you don't know the facts of the professor's arrest in Boston, yet you blast the police for arresting him--and you did it on national TV! Pulling the race card like this is divisive and unhelpful. Maybe you just want us talking about race instead of the health care "reform" bill.
Very shrewd on your part. You are acting like Mussolini again! Makes me sick that a President would do that.
Mr. President:
(1) You say that the health care "reform" needs to pass NOW to ensure the recovery. However, the bill won't take effect until 2013! This is worse than the "stimulus" bill that wasn't a stimulus bill--80% of the expenditures had nothing to do with stimulus, and 60% of of wasn't to be spent until three years down the road.
(2) You claimed that the health care "reform" bill wouldn't hurt a person's chances of getting private insurance, yet a clause in the bill prevents any new private insurance policies from being sold! Get your facts straight!
(3) You admit you don't know the facts of the professor's arrest in Boston, yet you blast the police for arresting him--and you did it on national TV! Pulling the race card like this is divisive and unhelpful. Maybe you just want us talking about race instead of the health care "reform" bill.
Very shrewd on your part. You are acting like Mussolini again! Makes me sick that a President would do that.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Obama Blows a Great Chance!
Obama gave a "nice" speech in Egypt last week. However, he missed a great opportunity to tell the world what the USA has done for Muslims around the world!
1) Liberated Indonesian Muslims from Japan in WW2.
2) Liberated Kuwaiti Mulsims in Gulf War I.
3) Liberated moderate Afghani Muslims from the extremist, foreign Taliban.
4) Fed Somali Muslims.
5) Liberated northern Africa and Turkey from the Nazis.
6) Liberated moderate Muslims in Kosovo.
7) Pushed Israel many times to give the Palestians their own state and land.
8) Provided a country (our own) that Muslims are free to worship in.
9) Helped free Afghanistan from foreign invaders (the USSR) who wanted to destroy Islam and all religions.
I know there are others, but I can't think of them off the top of my head right now.
Why did Obama miss these? Who knows. Maybe because he didn't want to sound like we were tooting our own horn. However, if he's such a great communicator, he could make it sound friendly instead of bragging. As I said, IF he's such a great communicator.
1) Liberated Indonesian Muslims from Japan in WW2.
2) Liberated Kuwaiti Mulsims in Gulf War I.
3) Liberated moderate Afghani Muslims from the extremist, foreign Taliban.
4) Fed Somali Muslims.
5) Liberated northern Africa and Turkey from the Nazis.
6) Liberated moderate Muslims in Kosovo.
7) Pushed Israel many times to give the Palestians their own state and land.
8) Provided a country (our own) that Muslims are free to worship in.
9) Helped free Afghanistan from foreign invaders (the USSR) who wanted to destroy Islam and all religions.
I know there are others, but I can't think of them off the top of my head right now.
Why did Obama miss these? Who knows. Maybe because he didn't want to sound like we were tooting our own horn. However, if he's such a great communicator, he could make it sound friendly instead of bragging. As I said, IF he's such a great communicator.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Keeping our Vows
I decided that I wouldn't post anything until I had something nice to say. Here goes.
Bravo to Obama for ending the "enhanced interrogations". Never mind that they were ended by Bush in 2005. Obama is a little late, that's all. But if he wants to make sure they don't continue, that's fine with me.
Not that I believe enhanced interrogations don't work. Evidence is that they do. And I'm not necessarily against some of the techniques when needed. And in no way do I believe that these are torture.
HOWEVER! In 1994, we signed an international agreement on eliminating the use of these techniques. The Senate passed it. Even if we believe they are OK morally and that they work, WE MUST ABIDE BY THE TREATY!
We are a nation of laws and must obey the laws that we ascribe to. If we wish to not abide by it, then we need to rescind it and be willing to suffer the international backlash.
A wise man said over 3000 years ago that a righteous man keeps his vows, even when they hurt him. The same applies to nations. We as a nation vowed to not allow these types of interrogation techniques, and we have to abide by that vow, even if it means loss of life.
Is there another way? Call for an international conference on terrorism and update our stance to take the moral high ground--that is, recognize that saving innocent lives is more important than causing temporary discomfort of someone who wants to destroy us.
Bravo to Obama for ending the "enhanced interrogations". Never mind that they were ended by Bush in 2005. Obama is a little late, that's all. But if he wants to make sure they don't continue, that's fine with me.
Not that I believe enhanced interrogations don't work. Evidence is that they do. And I'm not necessarily against some of the techniques when needed. And in no way do I believe that these are torture.
HOWEVER! In 1994, we signed an international agreement on eliminating the use of these techniques. The Senate passed it. Even if we believe they are OK morally and that they work, WE MUST ABIDE BY THE TREATY!
We are a nation of laws and must obey the laws that we ascribe to. If we wish to not abide by it, then we need to rescind it and be willing to suffer the international backlash.
A wise man said over 3000 years ago that a righteous man keeps his vows, even when they hurt him. The same applies to nations. We as a nation vowed to not allow these types of interrogation techniques, and we have to abide by that vow, even if it means loss of life.
Is there another way? Call for an international conference on terrorism and update our stance to take the moral high ground--that is, recognize that saving innocent lives is more important than causing temporary discomfort of someone who wants to destroy us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)