Wednesday, December 29, 2010

C'mon, Just Show It To Us Already ...

Hawaii's far left wing nutcase of a governor has come out and said he has the proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and he wants to show it to the world. You know, in spite of being a Democrat, he's right.

Obama's refusal to show his birth certificate has led to all kinds of rumors and internet bashing, rise to the insult 'birther' (used by those of the left to attack anyone on the right who doubts Obama's country of birth). It has gone so far as to lead an Army officer to refuse to deploy to Afghanistan, stating he could not follow an illegal Commander-in-Chief (he was subsequently courtmartialed, and will spend time in jail).

There are enough people and information sources out there to raise some question as to whether Obama is indeed a natural born American citizen. If he isn't, his occupation of the White House is illegal under current law. Why is Obama continuing to keep the controversy going? Why doesn't he just show us the birth certificate that is supposedly on file with the State of Hawaii, and kill the issue once and for all?

Two possibilities.
First, Obama is indeed hiding something, and the release of the certificate would show he's not natural born.

Second, Obama just loves to f*** with folks on the right, and he's just stringing them on. He's laughing at the controversy, allowing Democrats to ridicule those who believe he is hiding something.

I personally believe the second case is the right one - but I don't KNOW for sure. I would like to know. I want to see the birth certificate. I want to KNOW for certain that the man occupying the Presidency is legally doing so.

By The Way - this is another classic example of Democrat dual-standards. If this question had come up about George W. Bush, do you think Democrats would let it go?

Monday, December 27, 2010

A Prescription? For Aspirin?

So, as of January 1, if I want to pay for OTC (Over The Counter) medicines, such as aspirin or ibuprofin with a Flex plan or Health Savings Plan, I have to have a doctor's prescription for that specific drug, and I have to purchase it from a pharmacy (in order to enforce the need for a prescription).

This sounds insane, and it is. It is one of the first things to be implemented under Obamacare, and a very telling indication of what we are in store for with the rest that is coming.

Why did Democrats write this insanity into the bill?

Was it to exercise tighter government control over aspirin? That would be a very appropriate guess, given the Administration. But, no ...

Was it to give Doctor's better control over what their patients use? No ...

Was it to make sure that the healthcare consumer was given the benefit of a Doctor's advice before taking any medication. No ...

The reason is just a plain old Democrat money grab from the taxpayer.

You see, flex plans and HSAs have allowed healthcare consumers to purchase OTC health related items with pre-tax money. The government collects no income tax on money spent through flex of HSA plans.

By making this ludicrous, outrageous regulation requiring you get a prescrption for items like aspirin, the Democrats are counting on the vast majority of Americans not bothering and paying for these items with their normal funds - funds that have already been hit with income tax. If the healthcare consumer has a lot fewer items they can purchase through those plans, they won't contribute as much of their earnings into those plans. Hence, the government gets to hit you with income tax on a larger percentage of your earnings.

It's not about your health. It's not about your well being. It's about your money, and a way for the government to take more of it away from you.

Republicans have stated that this theft of our money is one of the first targets in their rollback of Obamacare. We'll see if they follow through with this.

Friday, December 24, 2010

Democrat Hypocrisy II

Back in the first half of the Bush Administration, while Republicans controlled both the House and Senate, Democrats frequenty invoked the '60/40' filibuster rule in the Senate to block Republican sponsored legislation.

Most people these days think it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything. That is incorrect. If Senators who are against a bill want to hold it up, they can filibuster - basically taking over the Senate floor with a non-stop verbal diatribe of gibberish. As long as they keep talking, they can hold the floor and prevent any action from being taken on the legistlation. A vote can be taken of the members of the Senate to cut off a filibuster. To succeed, it must have 60 vote in favor of cut off. That is where 60/40 comes from. The vote on the legislation itself just requires a simple majority, but to get to that vote, you have to have 60.

Democrats used this tactic several times against the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans. They called it their patriotic duty to exercise 60/40. When Republicans in the Senate started talking about rewriting the rules to eliminate the 60/40 roadblock, Democrats screamed bloody murder - they said any such attempt would be 'the nuclear option', and promised everything short of secession to block any change to the rules.

Fast forward to the elections of 2008. Democrats have held the House and Senate since 2006. Obama is elected. Republicans find themselves in the exact same position Democrats were in a few years before. They use 60/40 to block legislation in the Senate, just like the Democrats did. Democrats scream bloody murder again, this time because the rule is being used against them, instead of for them.

Faced with Republican control of the House, and a smaller majority in the Senate, Democrats are pissed that Republicans can continue to use 60/40 to derail Obama's agenda.

Preparing for the next Congressional Session, every single Democrat remaining in the Senate have written a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling on him to unilaterally change the Senate's operating rules to eliminate 60/40.

So, the 60/40 rule is great when it benefits Democrats, but the exact same rule is evil when it benefits Republicans.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Merry Christmas Out There

Thanks to threedonia for allowing me to shamelessly 'borrow' the picture ...

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

The Agent From WTF

I did not make this up ....

The CIA has announced it has created a new project called the Wikileaks Task Force. It has been created to study the harm done to US policy and operations by the Wikileaks dump of documents.

That's right ... you may be approached by an Agent from WTF.

Poor Spellers

You would think that the University of Virginia could turn out graduates that could at least spell the name of the state correctly!

Or ... did the U of V change their mascot?

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Facebook - What Lurks Beneath The Surface?

I have been personally concerned about Facebook since it started invading our lives. I have seen relatives and friends become so dependent upon it to communicate that phones, email, and even texting have gone by the wayside. It has become an integral part of so many folks' lives. It has allowed friends from long ago to connect again. It allows people from all over the world to communicate directly with each other. It is an easy way for groups of friends to communicate with the entire group. It seems to be such a great tool, and it is free.


There are tons of money spent developing and hosting Facebook - constantly updating and adding improved features. So ... how does all of that get paid for? Where is the profit for those who created it, and those who run it? Are they doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? Out of a dedication to social service? A contribution for the good of mankind?

Hardly ...

Here are some excerpts from "Which is Worse - Wikileaks or Facebook", by John Quain,, published on Dec. 21, 2010.

"In actuality, its (Facebook) only purpose is to collect information on its members in order to make money off that date. It can be in the form of ads directed specifically at you based on your interests (those sneaky "you might like" pronouncements on the right-hand side of the page). It can also be in the form of virtual goods or gifts, not to mention all the digital games people play pretending to be agrarian farmers.

And Facebook has a lot of information on its users. It can know where they live, how old they are, what sites they visit, what foods they like, where they work, where they go on vacation, where they like to party, and who their friends are. In Facebook-speak, it's all mapped to your 'social graph'. Translation: they know who's been naughty and who's been nice.

That could be very valuable information for marketers who want to reach people they think are most likely to buy their products ...

... Facebook - while often frivilous and fun and a possible goldmine for advertisers - has a dark side too. It has also become a tool for cyberbullying ... on a scale heretofore unavailable. People get fired for what they post to Facebook. Others have been robbed by thieves via Facebook."

The information that Facebook gathers from its users comes from what they enter in their profile, their account information, and the automated tracking of what it's users do, where they visit on the internet, what they tell their friends, and who their friends are. Users have no control on what information is gathered, indeed, do not even know it is being gathered. Users have no control over how that information is used, or who uses it.

Information gathering is especially profitable/horrific when it involves kids who use Facebook. Kids blindly believe that they're only talking to their friends when they are on the site. They don't realize that their communcations are open for others to read and collect. They don't realize how information they think is cool to share with their buddies can be used to harm them or their families. How many kids tell all their Facebook friends exactly where they (and their families) are at any given time? Hundreds, maybe thousands, of burglaries across the world have occurred because a kid unknowingly told a thief that their house was empty. How many kids have unknowingly accepted friend requests from pedophiles and predators, and then divulged dangerous information to those bastards?

Information gathered is not only available to those who gather it, but is targeted by hackers. Huge databases of identities and personal information are prime targets for theft.

A huge danger that Facebook poses for kids is social misuse. Bullying. Ridicule. Cliques. All that stuff that our kids face while they grow up. Except, now it is not just verbal, it is spread out on the internet, where the entire world can see it. Some kids always have had a cruel streak in them when it came to their contemporaries. Now, they have a powerful tool to take their cruelty to a never seen before level. Kids are killing themselves because of cyber-bullying, and Facebook is the primary enabler.

Another danger is inherent in Facebook use. Because of its popularity, its massive audience, and the incredible number of files that are passed through it (pictures), it has been identified by internet security experts as the biggest source of computer virus infenction in the world. A photo that your friend posted can easily have a virus scabbed onto it after it is posted, without the friend having any knowledge of it. You view the photo, and you have created a highway right to your computer for that virus to come screaming in. In many cases, commercial virus scanners (the ones that most people have on home systems) are unable to prevent this. Then when you post a photo, the virus attaches itself, and spreads amongst the rest of your friends. Photos are a favorite way for virus' to travel between computers.

Virus' are also imbedded in many of those cute games and apps you see pop up on Facebook. A word of advice - if you see something that looks cute, and you don't know where it came from, don't open it. You'll probably be sorry if you do.

For all you Facebook users, just remember this ... the people who make Facebook, and the people who take advantage of it for illegal/immoral purposes, didn't make it to give you a convenient tool to keep up with the members of the Class of '75. They built a tool to make a profit off of you, or to steal from you, or to hurt you. The benefits you see in using it are their hook.

So, if you use Facebook, Be careful! Watch what information you put out there. Monitor what your kids are doing, what they are saying, and to whom. Buy the best internet security program you can get, and keep it up to date.

Update - Forbes Magazine has reported that the creator of Facebook is now worth $50,000,000,000, and is likely to be MUCH richer soon after Facebook issues its first IPO.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Thank You, Mr. Lee

Baseball fans are well aware of this, but the rest of the world may not bet. Free agent pitcher Cliff Lee signed a contract with the Philadelphia Phillies this week. Mr. Lee was the hottest free agent on the market this off season.

Cliff was traded to the Texas Rangers in the middle of this past season. The left hander solidified the pitching staff, helping the team into its first post-season appearance in 11 years. The Rangers reached the World Series for the first time in their history. It was the first time in a VERY LONG time that the DFW area had something in sports to cheer about in October besides the Cowboys. In fact, the World Series has more than made up for the embrassingly dismal season our 'football' team is having.

Cliff's contract was up at the end of the season. The Yankees were the supposed frontrunners for his services (since they have a never ending pile of money to blow). The Rangers were seen as an outside shot, but they made a serious effort to get him. At the last minute, Philly came in and swooped him up.

Lee signed a contract reportedly for 5 years at $120million, give or take a few million. The Yankees had offered him 7 years at $160 million. The Rangers had gone up to 6 years at $140. IN taking the lesser of the three offeres, he explained that he was comfortable with the team (having pitched there before), and he felt it was his best chance to win more championships. I respect that - he didn't go for the tallest pile of money, he went for his (and his family's) happiness - and a very tall pile of money.

Thank you Mr. Lee. I mean that sincerely. Although you were only here for half a season, your impact was far greater than the short time frame would indicate. Yes, it would have been nice to have you back, but at the length and dollar figure of the contract, it would have crippled the Rangers' efforts to field a decent team around you. You helped give us a World Series. Outstanding. I wish you all the best.

You want to know the BEST part ??? The damn Yankees didn't get him!!!!!!!!!

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Democrat Hypocrisy

We are being bombarded by Democrat outrage at the extension of the Bush upper tax rate. Left wing lawmakers, mostly in the House but in the Senate as well, scream in indignation over how the rich are fleecing the government, with Republicans at the center of the out and out theft of funds from Democrat controlled spending coffers. The evil rich must be punished. They must give up more to help the fill the government's purse.

Well, lets look at something. 9 of the 15 richest members of Congress, both Representatives and Senators, are Democrats:

12. Pelosi (D-CA) net worth 29.74 million
11. Grayson (D-FL) net worth 31.41 million (lost his bid for re-election)
10. Fenistein (D-CA) net worth 46.07 million
9. Lautenburg (D-NJ) net worth 49.7 million
7. Polis (D-CO) net worth 56.49 million
6. Warner (D-VA) net worth 70.19 million
4. Rockefeller (D-WV) net worth 81.5 million
3. Harman (D-CA) net worth 152.62 million

And the Number 1 richest member of Congress is John Kerry (D-MA). His net worth is listed at 188.37 million, and has assetts that fluctuate between $200 and $300 million.

Senator Kerry has 7 homes (mansions, really). A multi-million dollar yacht (that he was hiding from MA taxes by berthing it in RI).

C'mon you Dems ... if you are so in favor of fleecing the rich, why are you holding onto all this wealth? You should be out front and center, giving almost all of it away to charity, or over to the Federal Government.

John ... can't you give up 6 of those mansions, and sell off that yacht to help pay off the deficit? Or pay for some of those illegal immigrant programs you are so much in favor of? Sign over your six figure salary to the Fed. Promise to give your entire full pension back to the government. Keep a couple of million - surely you can live comfortably on that? I know an awful lot of families in this country that could get by on that much.

Hey, all you California Dems ... giving all of your millions over to the state government would help them quite a bit. Surely all those teachers and state workers who have been let go due to your state's incredible financial mismanagement would benefit from that money more than you would? Nancy - why don't you give your millions to San Francisco to help pay for all the drug using homeless 'victims of the rich' you've helped welcome into the city?

While you're at it, can you get such notable left wing philantropists as Michael Moore, Ted Turner, George Soros, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, etc., to fork over their fortunes? Imagine all the social programs they could pay for!!!!

Monday, December 13, 2010

Random Christmas Season Brain Flatulence

As we find ourselves in the middle of the Christmas Season (yes, the Christmas Season - not the generic 'holiday'), my brain leaks some random thoughts. I'll add from time to time, so check back for the latest waste of electrons ....

You see them everywhere. The Salvation Army kettle folks. The gut reaction to seeing one of these people is to try and manuever yourself as far away from them as possible, trying to remain invisible to them as you enter or exit the store. The alternative is to carry a large wad of singles, so you can put a dollar (wadded up to make it look like several) into each kettle that you pass.

These folks spend hours in the weather, ringing those darn little bells. Some of them are paid (a little), but most are volunteers. Don't walk around them. Don't try to sneak by without them noticing you. Walk right into/out of the store as you would normally. Look at the person in the eye, smile, and give them a greeting.

I've never rode herd on a kettle, but I believe that if I did, I would certainly prefer that someone be pleasant towards me than to try and act as if I wasn't there.

If you transgress against someone in your vehicle (cut them off unintentionally, change lanes without looking, etc.), and they honk their horn at you, don't flip them off. Raise your hand in recognition that you have done something wrong. If they can see your face, just mouth the words 'I'm sorry'. You'd be surprised at how many of those people will smile at you, wave back, and say it's OK.

If you are in a parking lot, walking to your car, please don't walk down the middle in complete ignorance of everyone around you and the traffic problems you are creating. Yes, you may have the right of way in a parking lot, but that isn't going to be of much help to you if you are squashed beneath a pickup truck.

For God's sake, if you use a buggy to carry your items out to your vehicle, make sure you put that buggy into a cart corral, or take it back inside. Leaving it there to wander around and damage other shoppers' vehicles is one of the most hateful, self-centered, uncaring, ignorant, heinous, arrogant, stupid asshole things you can do.

Is It A Hate Crime?

After ....

The Glastonbury Holy Thorn Tree, located in Glastonbury, England (125 miles west of London) is said to have dated back to the beginnings of Christianity. Local English legends place religious significance on the tree, and many in England consider it a Holy place.

Someone attacked the tree over the evening of Dec. 8/9, sawing off all the limbs and leaving just a stump. The criminal(s) and motives are unknown, though the attack took place shortly after a Christian themed Holiday ceremony was performed at the tree's site.

I admit to never having heard of this tree or its legend before this past weekend. I do not know if it is indeed a Holy site. I do know what I read about the attack, and am disturbed (though not surprised) at the lack of outrage over it.

My main source of info was an online article from NPR. This horrendously liberal group calls itself a source of news. However, I admit that the article did not reach any anti-Christian conclusions. Neither did it condemn the attack, either as an example of religious persecution or religious hatred. I don't think they even consider it to be a crime.

What torques me off about this is the double standard. Since it was an attack on Christianity, it is no big deal. If the tree was a Muslim Holy site, this would have been front page news all around the world - an example of the West's attack against the peace loving peoples of the Islamic faith.

If this wasn't an attack on a site that Christians revere, if it was just some anonomous 2000 year old tree in the English countryside, NPR would be up in arms over the ecological disaster that had occurred, and they would demand the culprits (as long as they were Christian) be hung. Eco-nazis all over the world would be rioting in the streets, trying to find a way to blame George Bush.

Religious hatred is religious hatred, no matter who is the victim. Just because the offended parties are Christian, does this make it any less heinous than if they were Muslim? Why is it that the mistreatment of a Koran is a hideous offense, one punishable by death in the minds of many Muslims (and a horrid offense in the minds of almost everyone else) - and the burning of a Bible is considered to be a protected expression of Free Speech?

Religious freedom and tolerance has to be across the board, no matter what the religion in question is. That's the way it should be. Sadly, it never has been, and doesn't look like it ever will be.

Before ....

Photos credt Getty Images

Friday, December 10, 2010

Liberal Economics - Absolute Insanity

The abolute insanity of liberal (socialist) economics is being made clearer every day. The centerpiece basis of liberalism - the redistribution of wealth - is now in open warfare with capitalism. Not just int he United States, but around the world. This war endangers our country much more than Al Queada or any other terrorist organization can. This has the potential to destroy Western Civilization as we know it, from within. Sounds ominous, and it is ...

Ireland has aksed for, and received an economic bailout from other Eurpoean countries to keep it from going completely insolvent. A crash in real estate prices has left the government with a huge shortfall in meeting its social program commitments. There simply isn't enough money to pay for all the handouts the government gives, and there won't be for many years.

Ireland follows Greece in doing this. Portugal, Italy, and Spain are in danger of needing bailouts as well. The money needed for the bailous is coming from other nations, in the EU, the United States, and through the IMF. The drain of their cash to give to these countries is creating a strain on the nations that are istill in relatively good shape, phsing them into problem areas.

Spain appears to be the lynchpin. If it goes under, the whole EU may implode. France and Germany will not have the will or capital to save everyone else. England is facing massive problems. The riots by college students this week are because the government addressed college tuition prices. The government took away many of the subsidies it gives to finance students through university. It had to to cut their budget numbers. The effect is that the average student who was using the government subsidies will have to pay 3 times more than what they are now in order to continue their education.The financial situation in England is dire. Whole sections of their defense establishment will be cut to trim expenses, leaving the former Empire relatively helpless to defend itself. Why is England having so many problems - Socialist medicine and other government handouts/entitlements that spend far more than the government takes in.

Obama reached a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for 2 years. 2 whole years. The result has been a revolt by the far left and most of the Democrats in the House, who see this as Obama caving in to the rich. All Dems wanted the so-called middle class tax cuts to remain in place (rebranding them as the Obama tax cuts). It is tax rate for the 'rich' that has got their panties in a wad. Democrats in the House conspired amongst themselves in caucus (no Republicans allowed) to block Obama's proposal from even reaching the floor of the House for a vote. Reports from multiple news sources say the meeting was angry, loud, and vindictive. One unnamed Democrat Rep was said to have jumped to his feet during the proceedings and shout "F**K OBAMA" at the top of his voice.

The far left has the most liberal/social President in office the country has ever seen. He is their poster boy. And now, he does one thing they don't like, and they are jumping all over him. F**K OBAMA ... who would have predicted that 6 months ago?

Obama, Democrats, and a few moderate Republicans are freaking out at the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the 'rich'. They say it will cost our government over $700,000,000,000 over the next two years. BULLSHIT. The extension of the tax cuts only keeps the tax rate at the level it has been for the past 8 years. It is not aadditional cuts. No one is going to see more money in their pocket from this extension. What it does mean that $700,000,000,000 will stay in our pockets, rather than being stolen from us by the Federal Government. That doesn't COST the government anything. It prevents them from spending that money, money they don't have.

Obama and the Dems have pushed through their huge spending bills by using CBO numbers to help project the cotst of those bills as much lower than they really will be. The CBO had to use numbers based upon expiration of the tax cuts, and the resulting jump in all tax rates to all Americans, to base their reports on.

The left is screaming bloody murder at how the rich are stealing hundreds of billions of dollars from the government through extension of the Bush tax custs for those who earn over $250K. I have heard such incredible claims as it is going to cost the government up to $700,000,000,000 to extend these 'rich' cuts for two years. What an absolute load of political bullshit.

Consider this. The filthy rich, those who the left hates so much, employ armies of lawyers and tax accountants to help them avoid paying taxes. Does anyone in their right mind think that George Soros, billionaire Socialist, payes income taxes on his worth at the current top rate of 35%. No way in hell. I'd be surprised if he hasn't managed to find a way to get the government to pay him! Loopholes and tax shelters createds specifically to allow the rich to avoid taxes are scattered throughout the tax code - put there by politicians helping their rich friends. This theoretical example is entirely possible. Billionaire T.T. does not work for anyone, and hence does not receive a 'paycheck'. He makes millions every year through his investments in tax free bonds and securities. He takes advantage of government tax breaks, and shelters for his money. T.T. could double his fortune in a year, and not owe a single penny of income tax - under Obama, he could even receive a government check back.

Is upping the tax rate on the 'rich' going to make these people pay their share of taxes? If they aren't paying at 35%, what makes anyone think they'll pay at 39.6%?

There have been movements in the past to close these loopholes, but they haven't gone anywhere. Why? Because the targets of such a movement own the politicians who would have to change the laws. It just ain't going to happen.

So, what does this leave? It leaves the 'rich' who fall into the category of $250K up to, I guess, about $5,000,000. Rich, perhaps. Paying income taxes, because they aren't rich enough to have the armies to gain all the loopholes with. Upping the tax rate on them by another 5% or so will do what, exactly? It might gain the government an extra $12,500 from someone making right at $250,000, per year. That's less than a drop in the bucket to the government, It is a lot of money to the person it is being taken from, money directly out of their pocket, decreasing what they can spend, what they can invest.

So, if Obama and the Democrats are right in claiming $700,000,000,000 lost from the loss of this tax increase on the 'rich', and presume that the uber rich aren't going to pay anymore than they already do (which is almost none), that means that there have to be about 56,000,000 people in the United States making between $250K and $5,000,000. (Yes, my math is not exact, but it does illustrate the size of the issue pretty well).

Either 1/6 of all people in the United States (men, women, and children) are mid-level millionaires, or Obama's numbers are a trumped up pile of BULLSHIT. I tend to believe the latter is actually the correct choice ....

Update - While they are screaming bloody murder that the Bush tax cuts on the top level tax rate will cost the government $700,000,000,000, Democrats are tyring to push through an overall spending bill to keep the government running, before the lame duck session is over. Republicans are balking, because the 1924 page spending bill is full of pure pork spending. Lawmakers, primarily Democrat, have loaded this bill up with every pet project and vote buying scheme they can think of, and are trying to push it through quickly before anyone can read the massive document. Billions upon billions of wasted money - OUR MONEY. Democrats - absolute f**king liars when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

The Pre-Existing Conundrum

One of Obamacare's supposed cornerstones is a provison preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for 'pre-existing conditions'.

In a nutshell, a pre-existing condition is something you are afflicted with/experiencing before you sign up with the insurance company. If you are signing up for private insurance (you pay for it) the insurance company will either adjust the premium you pay to take into consideration this condition, or they may deny you coverage completely. If you are receiving insurance through an employer, the insurance company will probably have something in the policy stating that they will not cover the condition under the policy.

If you are a person trying to get this insurance, pre-existing really sucks. You are either going to have to pay more for your insurance, look for another insurance company, or pay for that condition out of your pocket.

If you are an insurance company, pre-existing really sucks. You know up front what your likely costs are going to be to cover this person with a known condition. You have to make a business decision as to whether to charge more for the insurance, deny coverage for that person, or deny coverage for the condition. If you choose none of those, you know up front you are going to lose a bunch money.

Pre-existing conditions really suck. They are a fact of life. Rarely does your body, your health take into consideration what your insurance situation is.

Obamacare prevents insurance companies from taking any action due to pre-existing conditions. No fare increases. No denied coverage. Insurance companies MUST cover the condition, whether they have collected any premiums for the coverage or not. The private citizen/healthcare consumer in me loves this. I hate the word pre-existing condition in relation to insurance, because it invariably means it will cost me money. However, when I consider the broader implications, I am concerned.

Obama and his minions leave the discussion right there, because it sounds so good. They purposely avoid the difficult questions and situations their declaration brings up. This is by choice, because the American Public as a whole would recoil if they knew the ramifications.

As I've explained in earlier posts, insurance is a risk pool. A group of people pay into the pool (premiums). When a member of the group has a loss (or injury/illness), they can pull money from the pool to recover. A simple example - a village of 20 families creats an insurance pool. They each pay $5 into the pool. One family suffers a barn fire. They can pull money from the pool to rebuld the barn. The pool is depleted until additional premiums are colected form the families to replenish it. If the mayor manages the pool, he may charge a fee, that fee being taken out of the pool.

The village families are the insured. The family who lost their barn is the claimant. The mayor is the insurance company. The system works. The insurance companies make the profits they need to stay in business. The system is so large that many people just can't grasp the fundamentals.

Obamacare's pre-existing ban has a good effect when a person changes insurance companies (due to personal choice or job change). The ban prohibits the new insurance form declining to cover the condition that was previously covered by the other company. This is good for the consumer, but bad for the insurance company.

It is also good when someone who does not have insurance signs on with an insurance company, and that company must cover conditions the consumer already has. This is very good for the consumer, and very bad for the insurance company.

A 'loophole' is created by this last 'good deed'. Under the new law, someone who chooses to not spend any money on insurance can wait until they find out they have a condition/illness before signing up for insurance. the insurance companies cannot deny them coverage, or charge them extra. The insurance company has to shell out money to cover this person without ever having collected any premiums to pay for it.

This is not insurance. This is welfare. It is welfare dictated by the government, but provided by private insurance companies at their cost.

What healthcare consumer in their right mind would pay for health insurance if they are not in actual need of it right then, given the government has told them they don't have to? It would be stupid not to wait until you get sick to take out a policy.

Likewise, no insurance company in their right mind would offer health insurance under these conditions. There would be no money coming in in the form of premiums, just money going out for claims. No business can operate like that. Only the government can do that.

So, if you read the headline description of Obamacare's handling of pre-existing conditions, it sounds great. The detals (all 2400 pages of them) contained within the bill are the real defnition, the defnintion that Obama and the Democrats refuse to talk about.

The end game in this is simple. Obama is on record multiple times stating this is his goal. He wants a single payer healthcare system, where the government controls all healtchcare, and pays for all healthcare. There is no room for private insurance companies or private health insurance, or employer provided health insurance in Obama's model.

Obama's model is not new. Leftists/Socialists in this country have been trying to force it on us for decades. Each time it has been uncovered for what it was, and defeated. This time, they succeeded in fooling enough people to let them put it into place.

Here is Ronald Reagan speaking to theAmerican People back in 1962 about he dangers of Socialized Medicine. Darned near exactly what Obama has pushed onto us. Remember, if you take the time to listen to this, he was a registered Democrat at the time ...

Republican Hero Of The Day

John Boehner (R-OH), the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Rep. Boehner called Democrat efforts to pass a half assed measure to extend some of the Bush era tax cuts by what it is - chicken sh*t. Decorum dictated he use a slightly less offensive word, but the message got across just the same ...

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

May The Funk Be With You

A quick visit to a local discount store at lunchtime almost cost me my lunch. I enter the store, and grab a cart. I'm pushing the cart down a main aisle, and kind of notice a couple of women in front of me. One is young, teen perhaps, the other looks to be in her late 30s or early 40s. I will not mention their ethnicity, it is irrelevant to this observation.

They stop in the aisle, apparently discussing something. I get to within 20-25 feet, and it hits me. A powerful stench, it causes me to gag out load. I almost lose my lunch right there in the middle of the aisle. At first, I don't realize where it is coming from. As I continue walking, it gets stronger the closer to these women I get. They are actually seperated by about 15 feet now. The stench seems to be a mix of body odor, halitosis, and the putrid smell of flesh rotting.

As I pass the older woman and get nearer the younger one, it is apparent that the older one is the source of the odor. From snippets of conversation I hear, they are mother/daughter.

How awful. How can you stink that bad, and not know it? How can you stink that bad and your family not notice it? Or do they think they are being kind by not mentioning it to you? If I smelled bad, I would want someone to tell me so I could take care of it.

Lady, please ... take a long, thorough shower. Use some deodorant. Your fellow shoppers, and I suspect your family, will be grateful.

(And no, this was not at a Walmart ...)