Liberals should go into marketing

Well, I haven’t posted anything in a really long time. Why? Because, I’m working on reading the health-care bill(s). They unfortunately are very time consuming and are difficult to understand at times. Not to mention every other line in the health-care bill is citing another bill, which I have to look up and further research. I’m not even close to finished, however I am amazed as to what I have read thus far. Also, I was amused to see what new spin the Liberals wanted to put on this health-care bill. It amazes me how fast the Democratic party is to pass blame to avert attentions off themselves over this legislation they just passed. “The idea came from Republicans” not mentioning that the economic situation when it was drafted by the Republicans was substantially different then the times we are facing today. That’s neither here nor there. People aren’t outraged because it’s a “Democratic” health-care reform. People are outraged at the huge overhaul and government control of the health industry. As well as the forced mandates on EVERYONE being required to have health care. If the Republicans were doing a massive overhaul of health care right now and forcing everyone to get insured. Guess what? They would be the bad guys then. A leading Democratic Pollster expressed my thoughts exactly. Health-care reform is not only a good idea it is very necessary. However, we need to gradually do it. I also think that we shouldn’t even be considering adding more government spending in the health-care industry until we can properly manage what we have so far (Social Security, Medicare, etc.)
My notes on the health-care bill are below:

LIMITATION.—Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prohibit a plan sponsor from establishing contribution requirements for enrollment in the plan or coverage that provide for the payment by employees with lower
hourly or annual compensation of a lower dollar or percentage contribution than the payment required of similarly situated employees with a higher hourly or annual compensation.

This limitation means to me that it is not equal health-care for all. Some are still going to be required to pay more. Not just those above 250k.
—————————————————-

WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—

Smoking cessation.
Weight management.
Stress management.
Physical fitness.
Nutrition.
Heart disease prevention.
Healthy lifestyle support.
Diabetes prevention.
What this means to me, is my joke on the previous post about the voluntary breast implant surgery as being a far cry from reality is not so inaccurate. Or at least the personal trainer/yoga etc.
————————————————
SEC. 2718. BRINGING DOWN THE COST OF HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

(3) TERMINATION.—The provisions of this subsection shall have no force or effect after December 31, 2013.

Take from it what you will, I don’t know how many times I’ve read that the penalties to the insurance company/requirements will terminate on December 31, 2013. Interesting, didn’t they say that things would take effect in 2014? There are no real provisions in this bill as I have read so far that actually do bring the costs of health care down. Not to mention those that are not in the “exchange” still have an effect on the prices of those in the guaranteed coverage plans. In the print it says the limitations on caps does not pertain to Premiums which reflect the average premium increase of ALL health care insurance annually.

————————————————
I was just tallying up costs and showing where the money is supposed to be going:

$30,000,000 – Collect health data/educate about appeals

$250,000,000 – Grants to monitor/approve premium updates as allowed by law (no State qualifying for a grant
under paragraph (1) shall receive less than
$1,000,000, or more than $5,000,000 for a
8 grant year.’’.) So you can hire on one more person or give another job duty to an already hired state worker and you would qualify if they gave the proper information about appeals and helped to monitor people submitting the paperwork. That state would qualify for no less than $1 million dollars? Hopefully, the restrictions are more stringent than I am reading into.

$5,000,000,000 – high-risk individuals (high risk plans qualify no less than 65% of coverage). Termination of coverage after January 1, 2014.
So, the immediate fix is kind of like Cash for Clunkers. First come first serve, and it’s going to be a temporary fix. Not to mention that the programs to sustain this stuff haven’t even been developed yet. It says to enact this as soon as such a program exists, and then it ends by 1-1-14. So people footing 35% of their medical bills could qualify and guess what still go bankrupt if they can’t pay 35% of hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. Hey, it was a valiant effort at least…
$5,000,000,000 – pay 80% of employer based expenses to early retired individuals not in excess of $90,000 or less than $15,000
————————————————

Subtitle B—Immediate Actions to
Preserve and Expand Coverage
SEC. 1101. IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO INSURANCE FOR UNIN4
SURED INDIVIDUALS WITH A PREEXISTING
CONDITION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish
a temporary high risk health insurance pool program to
provide health insurance coverage for eligible individuals
during the period beginning on the date on which such program
is established and ending on January 1, 2014.
‘‘(B) make recommendations, as appropriate, to the
State Exchange about whether particular health insurance
issuers should be excluded from participation in the Exchange based
on a pattern or practice of excessive or unjustified premium increases.

They will be excluded from participating in the “exchange”. However, they will be free to raise premiums, and their premium increases will effect the premium rates of people in the “exchange”. So what good is that really doing?
————————————————

(2) MONITORING BY SECRETARY OF PREMIUM
INCREASES.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Beginning with plan
years beginning in 2014, the Secretary, in con
junction with the States and consistent with the
provisions of subsection (a)(2), shall monitor
premium increases of health insurance coverage
offered through an Exchange and outside of an
Exchange.
‘‘(B) CONSIDERATION IN OPENING EX
CHANGE.—In determining under section
12(f)(2)(B) of the Patient Protection and Af
fordable Care Act whether to offer qualified
health plans in the large group market through
an Exchange, the State shall take into account
any excess of premium growth outside of the Ex
change as compared to the rate of such growth
inside the Exchange.
Meaning, what I already said. People will continue to see premium increases as insurance companies deem fit.
————————————————

There is a lot of good in the health care bill don’t get me wrong. However, I have a problem with the forced insurance requirement. As well as the massive cost of this bill and trying to enact this right now, instead of gradually building on to this as our economies within our states could actually handle. How many states have frozen pay increases on teachers/police/etc. In order to keep jobs and to balance their budget to work their way out of this recession. Only to be forced to pay more money that they don’t have to establish this Political agenda. Don’t fool yourself into believing they are doing this for the people. They are doing this for the thousands that want a handout and will vote accordingly as long as they are promised one. The American public is the most generous in the world, so establish charities to help pay those that are unable or are getting screwed over by the insurance companies. I know I give money to charities already.. Make it voluntary, the money will still be there.

Goodbye freedoms and hello inflation.

Never good enough

Hey,

so usually I hit up news sites and check comments to get inspiration to write basic responses to people. I decided to poll friends from school instead. I am more amused than anything in regards to what responses I got..
“I still don’t have dental coverage”. Was the first response I got in regards to what you think of the new health care bill.

Well, maybe he’s right. Bad oral hygiene has been linked to other health conditions in your body. (I.E. heart disease, stroke, premature births, etc). Does that mean that all preventative medicine is a basic human right and that we should get everything? My parents put sealants on my teeth when I was younger and introduced me to flossing and basic teeth hygiene. Not a cavity in sight in my mouth. Does that mean that I should foot the bill for other people who neglect their teeth, have drug problems, or who smoke? What about chiropractic care, there are a lot of studies that show that removing of pressure caused by subluxations can prevent diseases(not definitive yet), there’s another showing that it can reduce ear infections in children. Regardless where do we draw the line? Massage Therapy/Acupuncture/Chiropractic Care/Naturopathy/Nutritionist/Meditation/Yoga/Aerobics Classes/Personal Trainers/ etc..

Why isn't my elective breast implant free?!! It increases my self esteem and I am able to better contribute to society because of it!

When was it decided that health care was an inalienable right and that everyone is REQUIRED to have it?  The majority of Americans are overweight, billions of dollars are spent annually in obesity related medical care. In order for it to be more “fair” we will need to institute a new “sin tax” for junk foods. I bet some of you are actually agreeing with the previous statement about the sin tax. How many people eat junk foods periodically and are not overweight? Does that mean that they should have to have an increase on their products because of others? It is a slippery slope we are headed on.

Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Why don’t we try to fix/properly regulate the government programs that are already instituted. Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid. The government borrows money from those programs and gives them IOUs. What makes you think that will be any different from the heeps of money that are being thrown at this worthless health care bill?

As I stated in one of my previous entries. When the current Potus has received over $2 million dollars from the health care industry in campaign contributions. What makes you think that his allegiances are to you and not the insurance companies? Their stocks went up for a reason. The only reason the insurance companies allowed this to get through (because they are the ones controlling things) is because they will now get the business of millions who didn’t need health coverage. The majority of the uninsured are people in their early 20s who are at the prime of their lives and for the most part are healthy. So guess what they will get their money instead of raising caps. They will probably come out with more money than had this bill not passed.

Show me one example of where Universal health care has been as financially feasible as expected. We cannot foresee the future, however if you want to follow others’ leads. How many countries were overwhelmed by the massive hidden costs associated with universal health care? France was ranked number 1 in health care according to the extremely over cited 10 year old source. Less than a year ago the Wall street journal emphasized their struggle with the high costs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html

England has had trouble, Canada, and how about in the U.S. this is going to erupt into a lot more spending than we can handle. Especially while struggling to get out of the grasps of a recession.

But hey, my back feels a little stiff. I think it’s my right to be happy. So bring on free massage therapy. Not to mention I could get a very cheap massage at the local college or trade school. I have many college friends that get basic medical treatment from students at their own college. With oversight from a trained professional, for little or no cost. But hey they are still mentioned in statistics relating to the uninsured. Granted like car insurance it is a just in case thing right? Well last time I checked you had the CHOICE of whether or not you wanted to buy a car and therefore got insurance. This is like taxing EVERYONE to pay for car insurance even for people that walk to work and don’t own a vehicle.

Maybe I’m just out of the loop. Where is that kool-aid?

Bush did it so it makes it ok?

So liberals come out of the wood work to defend wasteful spending responding with.. “Bush did it, you didn’t complain then”. But hey, you are/were complaining about Bush’s spending. So does that mean that you contradict yourself and that it is okay for one, but not the other? Or are you just confused and have to realize that if you didn’t like one doing it, you shouldn’t be thrilled about the other. We are in a recession so shouldn’t we fix “errors” in our ways and I don’t know have some CHANGE?

We are still there for your information also people. “Bush’s War”. You people are so retarded it makes my head spin. See the previous post about Was Bush So Wrong. The thing that amuses me is the people that were screaming about Bush after he is out of office and blaming him were the very people condemning Bush Sr. for his inaction in Iraq years back.. LOL

Back to Health Care. So explain to me why every liberal and their mother is quoting a CBO report stating we will save $138 billion. They weren’t to fond of CBO reports earlier on.. But that is a non-point. What spending included in this new healthcare overhaul was not included in that report? The Doctor Fix Bill, which was taken out of the Health Care Bill to keep it under $1 trillion.

Here’s something amusing, you can find out what it means on your own..

————————————

“He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done,” said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.

“In consultation with his own doctors, he’s decided to go that route.”

Or maybe Canadian's health is so good because they eat seals? Lets follow their lead on that too?

————————————

And also tell me if this health care bill was aimed at taking down the evil insurance companies, how come their stocks are rising? Perhaps because everyone is REQUIRED to get insurance now?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504365_162-5304468-504365.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/07/AR2009030701748.html

So Obama leads the way with received campaign contributions from the health care industry. I wonder where his loyalties lie?

—————————————–
Why is the biggest focus of Obama in health care reform that will mostly take effect in 2014 (even though it was being estimated at 2018 previously). Hey, at least he can get the taxes flowing now though right? How is that attacking our most serious and urgent of problems, our unemployment and the downtrodden economy? But hey, the housing market bottomed out in August of last year so things should eventually domino effect in the right direction. Will that be because we threw money we don’t have at financial problems? I’m thinking not..

WAKE UP! All of the major media agencies have a bias. So don’t take every word as gospel. Verify your information with more than one source.

Not Olbermann or Beck. neither have all the answers for you… and both are just entertainers.

Health Care

Yes, our health care is horrible.. as an example of the horrible quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers.

Germany has the world’s oldest Universal Health Care System. So I chose them to take a look at, according to what I read 87% of Germans are covered under the insurance. 13% of the US population(100-the 87 mentioned) is 40.15 million. According to various articles I have read 40-46 million Americans are uninsured now. So how is that any different other than the fact that we will have blown Trillions of dollars.

But take a look at this study

“CNN’s so-called Truth Squad called PRI and found out that its figures were drawn from a 2003 study by
the insurance company Blue Cross-Blue Shield: That study concluded that a third of the uninsured—more than 14 million people—qualified for existing government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, but were not enrolled in them. About another 13 million had incomes of $50,000 or more, suggesting they could obtain insurance on their own.

Nearly 6 million were what Blue Cross called “short-term uninsured,” meaning people who are either between jobs or are just entering the work force. Many of the remainder were low-wage workers in firms with fewer than 10 workers, who could obtain coverage if the government offered tax credits for small businesses or grants to states, while others are illegal immigrants, it said.”

It is slightly old, and relies on an insurance companies findings, who you could accuse of having an ulterior motive. However the points mentioned are valid points to think about when you look at the 40-46 million number that gets thrown around. Granted that 40-46 million uninsured means 262-268 million are insured. Also, what about people that deny health coverage for religious convictions.

When you compare other countries health care vs our own. You don’t account for LARGE differences in populations and many other factors. The U.S. is unfortunately a lot more unhealthy than many European countries. We have higher obesity rates. That will not change if we switch to Universal Health Care. We will still have people dying at earlier ages because of that very reason. We also have 9 times the number of motor vehicle accident fatalities than France who we seem to compare our health care to. We have higher homicide rates, suicide rates, etc.. We also account for all of our illegal aliens in our mortality rates where as other countries do not. So that alone drops our average life expectancy, infant mortality rate, etc. Or how about the Native Americans on reservations who are guaranteed free health care. “American Indians have an infant death rate that is 40 percent higher than the rate for whites. They are twice as likely to die from diabetes, 60 percent more likely to have a stroke, 30 percent more likely to have high blood pressure and 20 percent more likely to have heart disease.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31210909/

Also, we have tried universal health care on a smaller scale already in the U.S. and it hasn’t worked. Tennecare(bankrupt), Hawaii(Quit before it got too bad), California(bankrupt), Tax-A-Chu-Setts(prices just keep going up).

A pretty good article about states’ previous failures.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/22/the-states-failed-experiments
“A 2008 analysis by Patricia Lynch of Kaiser Permanente, published by Health Affairs, noted that in addition to Washington and New York, the individual insurance markets in Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont “deteriorated” after the enactment of guaranteed issue. Individual insurance became significantly more expensive, and there was no significant decrease in the number of uninsured.”

We do need health care reform, however not in this manner. As many have stated we spend way more in health care than any other country. So why do we need to throw more money at it to fix the problem? Why not try to properly regulate the spending we already do to supplement a better system? Do we really want to empower the government more in the health industry? look at medicare/medicaid. The FDA is doing a really good job monitoring new drugs from pharmaceutical companies aren’t they? That’s a prime example of the government involved in health care. Lobbyists pay them off, and they look the other way.

Look at the military health care. It’s fairly decent but how much over spending is done. Look at Walter Reed. The government takes the lowest bidder and doesn’t necessarily guarantee quality.

I think offering a new option that is affordable is a good concept as it will increase competition against insurance providers. However, forcing EVERY American to be insured is unconstitutional.

I love how a Gallup poll showed more Americans believe the measure will make things worse rather than better for the country and for them personally. And public support is unfavorable for this yet they are trying to do it anyways. Look at Massachusetts, they are a prime example of the public being outraged. I love the fact that this bill is being passed with the promise of being fixed later.. What a joke.

Was Bush So Wrong?

“We went to war with Iraq over false allegations that there were WMDs…”

I don’t know how many times I have heard this statement. Is that really what you believe? We had already occupied that country previously. Do you think that the intelligences are going to be that far off?

You guys that spout these things love MSNBC, Factcheck.org, Snopes, etc.. so I’ll try and stick to those sources. Excuse me if I throw in an occasional .gov website. Lol

First of all lets see what factcheck.org has to say about the allegations of Bush lying.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

So this article establishes that Bush didn’t lie, however he might have been wrong. Well according to an article by MSNBC he wasn’t wrong either.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

and here is a DOD article about BC found

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

You can’t forget about the speech that Collin Powell made to the UN Security Counsel…

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

Well, maybe you can. Are you surprised that it is now deleted off the whitehouse.gov website? I had to go to the cached MSNBC page to get this for you..

———————————

MR. POWELL (United Nations Security Council, February 5, 2003):  My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources.  These are not assertions.  What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.

MR. RUSSERT:  When you uttered those words, you believed them deeply.

GEN. POWELL:  I spent five days out at the CIA going over every single piece of information that was going to be in my presentation.  There were a lot of other pieces of information that different people would have wanted me to use and it was all rejected.  Everything in that statement was blessed by the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet; his deputy, John McLaughlin; and all of their senior officials.  They believed it, too.  George has said he believed it.  And so I went to the UN having dumped a lot of stuff on the side of the road because it wasn’t multiple source.  It might have been right, but it wasn’t multiple source and I wouldn’t use it.  And the reason you see Director Tenet sitting behind me is because I wanted to make sure and he wanted to make sure that people understood I was not making a political statement.  I was making a statement of the facts as we knew them.

Now, those same facts, that same set of facts, was available to the Congress the previous fall in the National Intelligence Estimate that the Congress asked for.  But I notice a lot of candidates are now saying they didn’t read it.  But it was up there and they asked for it.  The mobile biological laboratories was up before the Congress months before.  The president used that in his State of the Union speech.  So over a long period of time, the CIA and all of the other intelligence agencies of government had created a, a statement for all of us that said, one, this is a regime that has used these kinds of weapons on the past; two, they have retained the capability of making such weapons; and three—and here’s where we fell down—they have stockpiles of these weapons.  And we all believed it.  Our military believed it going into battle.  Other governments believed it.

Fourth point I’d like to make.  Suppose that the UN sanctions had subsequently broken down.  We didn’t go into a war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein was free of all UN constraints because of the collapse of the Oil for Food program.  Would you believe, would anybody believe, that with the capability and with the intent he would not then go back to trying to build up those stockpiles? That’s the chance the president did not want to take, that’s the risk he did not want to take.

———————————

While, there is not definitive evidence that any of the claims that were brought upon for Powell’s speech to the UN. To this day there is still no evidence that supports that the information wasn’t correct. In the 151 page post-war investigation. I’m only about a 3rd of the way done with it. But they continue not to defy the information provided yet insist that it was overstated. That does not mean that there wasn’t a viable threat. That means that the assertions were too strong and that they are not completely verified but the threats are real. So when Saddam decided to defy sanction after sanction imposed by the UN. We had real threats to be concerned with. So of course we didn’t sit back and play games with him. We were recently attacked a little more than a year prior.

“Although all senior Iraqi officials interviewed by the ISG indicated that Iraq had ended its pursuit of nuclear weapons in 1991, several senior officials said they assumed that Saddam would resume Iraq’s nuclear program once UN sanctions ended.”

The claims about pursuits of nuclear weapons ending in 1991 are also contradicted in this report stating that they found some created up until 1996. That is all stuff that we found and that was not transported to outlining countries. The UN was not allowed in Iraq for quite some time to search, so there’s no telling what they were able to do/hide in that time. “The ISG found, however that Iraq never fully disclosed the amount of BW agents it had produced prior to 1991, the locations where they wre stored or the amount destroyed, making it difficult to asses the true nature and maturity of Iraq’s pre-Gulf War BW program.” Not to mention all of the Nuclear scientists used previously were kept on.. I wonder why. The smoking gun against it all was the source CURVE BALL’s complete information could not be verified. They leave out that a lot of the information he provided was verified by 3 other sources. They don’t denounce everything he says. They state that his mobile facilities claims could not be verified, but were probable. The only statements against his claims were the DIA’s investigations claiming the mobile facilities currently weren’t able to house them.. not that they couldn’t have in the past and that they weren’t modified since to appear like they didn’t.

Most Americans agree that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks on 9/11. But they argue that there are no ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq..

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070503-6.html

(I realize it has the word Bush in it so you do not believe it.. unfortunately it’s hard to find sources that I once used as they get deleted for some strange reason..)

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Is the report that I was speaking about earlier with no definitive proof that there were WMDs and that there weren’t. This is the report that people are clinging to and sourcing as proof that Bush was lying. However, in this same report the media seems to ignore the statements in regard to Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

It states there were at least 8 meetings between senior Iraqi representatives and top al-qaeda members since the 90s to present. And many more that are not as reliable. The responses to these meetings are they cannot insure what the contents of these meetings entailed.

Look at the track records of Saddam.

I must admit continually throughout this report Saddam has been quoted continually saying that Al-Qaeda is not to be trusted and not to cooperate with them. However senior level Iraqi officials confirmed meetings stating that the two sides at various points have discuessed safe have, training, and reciprocal non-aggression. There are several reported suggestions by Al-Qaeda to Iraq about joint terrorist ventures. This reports very obviously leaning towards the left states that whether or not Iraq took Al-Qaeda up on that remains to be proven. However, Saddam on numerous occasions has commented on how he was pleased at the act of terrorism because the U.S. had bombed Iraq during the first Gulf War and tried to kill Saddam. Saddam also said that they were an effective organization because of their ability to successfully attack U.S. interests. In this report it also states that Saddam claims that the U.S. is not the enemy of Iraq.

Now you tell me what you think about those claims.

So you tell me what your thoughts are about 500-metric tons of Uranium that we have proven existed that Saddam wasn’t allowing UN investigators to search for a good period of time. 500 metric tons deemed enough to create 142 nuclear weapons according to a British scientist.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/9/110630.shtml

————————

With the public demanding action and an astounding 70-75% supporting the war in Iraq. Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies declaring a viable threat in Iraq. Saddam toying with the U.N. do you really think we didn’t have a legitimate reason to invade Iraq? If we would have just made precise air strikes on areas that intelligences deemed viable threats. We would have been criticized by the rest of the world and liberals for being wimps and not getting our hands dirty. I point to Clinton’s criticisms in regards to Kosovo. At least we’ve made efforts to rebuild, and we got rid of a horrible dictator who defied UN and went against their oil for food agreement. Obviously he isn’t a trusted individual and he doesn’t respect or fear the UN. So talks weren’t going to do the trick.
Sure in hindsight, it’s easy to argue that we should never have invaded Iraq. But what is done is done and you can’t dwell on the past and continue to Blame Bush. We are still in Iraq under the current administration and guess what. Bush already declared a withdraw date from Iraq for August of this year. Are we going to be out under Obama? I think not. Not to mention defense spending has increased under Obama’s administration. Yet he is not giving the generals the troops they requested to effectively handle Afghanistan. Instead the majority of the budget is going to the white house to oversee the military action. Basically so he can cover his butt and make sure things are done politically correctly.

1 trillion dollars spent on Iraq estimated over a 10 year span.. the total war. How much is being proposed to be spent in health care. And how much has Obama increased our deficit in his first year in office.

I welcome rebuttals as I’m trying to understand the whole thing as I continue to see this topic debated. Please source your statements though and don’t give me just opinions. Also, please don’t copy and paste Democratic Underground statements as that shows no real effort on your part.