HOW WILL HEALTH CARE REFORM AFFECT STUDENT COVERAGE?

If the health care overhaul passes, it might affect college students’ access to parental plans, employment and individual rates or an uninsured tax if colleges choose to mandate insurance coverage, says the Commonwealth Times.

According to Devon Herrick, a health economist and senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis:

• Proposals for the bill would attempt to overcharge young individuals’ rates to cost-subsidize older individuals’ rates.
• In the individual market, where many students get coverage, rates for people with pre-existing conditions, who tend to be older, would get lower premiums.
• Under the existing proposals, underrides for pre-existing conditions would not be permitted while limited adjustments for age would be allowed.

“A young person — maybe 20 or 22 — would be charged half of what someone 60 years old would be charged,” Herrick said.  “Of course if you don’t pay it, there’d be a fine … What (some Congress members) are talking about now is 2.5 percent of your income.”

Some members of Congress want to have tight banding for age, no underriding for (pre-existing conditions) and have some type of individual mandate where you would be required to have coverage, says Herrick.

How the individual mandate might affect students is uncertain.  The policy could be implemented through an employer mandate, says Herrick.

“Obviously (if) you’re a full-time student it may not affect you,” says Herrick.  ”But it might make it harder to get that part-time job if an employer sees the chance that they might have to pay thousands of dollars more in health coverage or a fine for someone working part time.”

Source: Erica Terrini and Jillian Quattlebaum, “Health care reform affects student coverage, provides options,” Commonwealth Times, November 20, 2009.

For text:

http://media.www.commonwealthtimes.com/media/storage/paper634/news/2009/11/19/News/Health.Care.Reform.Affects.Student.Coverage.Provides.Options-3837559.shtml

For more on Health Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=16

St. Luke, the physician

Christians cannot and should not try to separate their religious beliefs from their political beliefs. Faith must inform our morals, and morality must inform our politics. So what does the Christian faith have to say about health care? Quite a bit actually.

Christianity is fully embodied in Catholicism, and Catholicism uniquely reveres, embraces, and is founded upon the authoritative traditions of the early Church. So the answer to “What does the Christian faith have to say about health care” is another question: how did the early Church traditionally approach health care? (Scripturally, some important information on early Christian charitable work in general can be found in the Book of Acts and some of St. Paul’s letters but very little specific to health care aside from miraculous healings and the institution of the Sacrament of the Sick through the letter of St. James, 5:14-15.)

The history of institutionalized health care is so intimately intertwined with the history of Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity, that it is no exaggeration to say that the latter gave rise to the former.

But for the purposes of the current American health care debate, two main questions stand out: Did the early Church relinquish all responsibility for care of the sick to the state (the Roman Empire)? Did it demand the state tax the rich heavily to pay for health care for everyone?

On both counts, no, it didn’t. And it is so frustrating that the leadership of Christian churches, but especially that of the Catholic Church, as well as many lay Christians have ignored the history of the Church with regard to this issue.

Even before the persecution of Christianity stopped, the early Church assumed full responsibility for the sick (including their pagan persecutors) and financed their hospitals through private charity.

According to a Christianity Today article, reviewing the book Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity:

As early as A.D. 251, according to letters from the time, the church in Rome cared for 1,500 widows and those who were distressed. A hundred years later, Antioch supported 3,000 widows, virgins, sick, poor, and travelers. This care was organized by the church and delivered through deacons and volunteer societies…. When the plague of Cyprian struck in 250 and lasted for years, this volunteer corps became the only organization in Roman cities that cared for the dying and buried the dead. Ironically, as the church dramatically increased its care, the Roman government began persecuting the church more heavily.

Outside their close family and perhaps friends, most pagans cared nothing for their fellow human beings, whom they did not consider to be brothers made in the image and likeness of God, as Christians did. We should expect nothing less with health care under the neo-pagan political left in America today. Ideas have consequences; indeed they have already occurred in de-Christianized Europe. Just as the pagans before them, leftists are willing and even eager to kill the weakest among us, i.e. the unborn (or even born) child, the elderly, and the mentally or physically disabled.

According to sociologist Alvin J. Schmidt in How Christianity Changed the World:

Charity hospitals for the poor and indigent public did not exist until Christianity introduced them…. [T]he first ecumenical council of the Christian church at Nicaea in 325 directed bishops to establish a hospice in every city that had a cathedral…. The first hospital was built by St. Basil in Caesarea in Cappadocia about A.D. 369…. After St. Basil’s hospital was built in the East and another in Edessa in 375, Fabiola, a wealthy widow and an associate of St. Jerome, built the first hospital in the West, a nosocomium, in the city of Rome in about 390. According to Jerome, Fabiola donated all of her wealth (which was considerable) to construct this hospital, to which she brought the sick from off the streets in Rome….

The building of hospitals continued. St. Chrysostom (d. 407), the patriarch of the Eastern church, had hospitals built in Constantinople in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, and St. Augustine (354-430), bishop of Hippo in northern Africa, was instrumental in adding hospitals in the West. By the sixth century, hospitals also had become a common part of monasteries. Hence, by the middle of the sixth century in most of Christendom, in the East and the West, ‘hospitals were securely established.’ Also in the sixth century, hospitals received an additional boost when the Council of Orleans (France) passed canons assuring their protection, and in the last quarter of the same century, Pope Gregory the Great did much to advance the importance of hospitals….

By 750 the growth of Christian hospitals, either as separate units or attached to monasteries, had spread from Continental Europe to England…. And by the mid-1500s there were 37,000 Benedictine monasteries that cared for the sick….

The Crusaders also founded healthcare orders, providing health care to all, Christian and Muslim alike. The Order of Hospitallers recruited women for nursing the sick. The Hospitallers of St. Lazarus, founded in the East in the twelfth century, devoted themselves primarily to nursing. This order spread to Europe, where it founded many more hospitals and treated people with various diseases. The Knights of the Order of Hospitallers of Saint John of Jerusalem (Knights of Malta) not only operated and maintained hospitals, but also admitted the insane. They founded a Christian insane asylum in 1409 in Valencia, Spain.

According to historian Gary Ferngren in Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity:

The experience gained by the congregation-centered care of the sick over several centuries gave early Christians the ability to create rapidly in the late fourth century a network of efficiently functioning institutions that offered charitable medical care, first in monastic infirmaries and later in the hospital.

The Protestant Revolution, the Endarkenment, the French Revolution, and its intellectual descendants have brought abrupt and sometimes violent disruptions, if not a complete end, to this vast charitable network in many places. Yes, “evil” religion and “papism” had to be smashed and replaced by the “humanitarian” Animal Farm of the Leviathan state. Ha, how “compassionate.” But I digress….

Now, am I suggesting that the U.S. return to the exact health care system of the early Church? Of course not! This straw man entirely misses the point that I’m trying to communicate here. I’m not suggesting a structure and system in itself but rather an approach and a set of principles that need to be incorporated into the American health care system. And the Christian churches, esp. the Catholic Church, need to recommit themselves to their obligation to care for the indigent sick and need to take an active role in articulating and promoting these Christian principles to everyone.

What are those principles?

1. Generally and most importantly, care for the physical needs of human beings do NOT override Christian moral imperatives not to steal and commit violence, even from and against the rich. Spiritual needs override any physical needs.
2. The health of the poor in one’s local community must be a pressing concern of all Christians.
3. Care for the sick is an essential duty of local churches that should not be relinquished to the nation-state.
4. Care for the sick is not to be financed by state-coerced wealth redistribution but by the patients themselves or charity.
5. However, to whom much is given, much is expected. The rich are morally obligated to voluntarily direct their wealth to the health care of the poor, starting in their local communities.
6. If the state is to assist in financing health care in any way (which I doubt is necessary), it should be done as locally as possible, according to the Catholic moral principle of subsidiarity.

Medicine today is vastly more accurate, comprehensive, sophisticated, technological, and effective. That also means that, aside from higher costs caused by government interference in the industry,  health care is naturally more expensive now because it is so much more valuable than it was centuries ago. But none of these facts change or undermine the Christian principles I’ve laid out above. Politics itself has shown that more than enough money can be raised through a well-organized solicitation of voluntary donations.

The fact that modern medicine can treat so many maladies naturally and psychologically creates more pressure to assure every sick person receives treatment. But again, that pressure should not tempt us to stifle charity through state-enforced plunder. That pressure belongs on us as individuals, esp.  the rich, who must care for modern-day Lazarus or face an eternal punishment.

It is an inverse relationship and a zero sum game between government control and Christian charity. The former stifles the latter. Even if socialized medicine did work better (it never does), it would do no good for us to gain all the bodily health in the world yet become mortally and spiritually sick in the process.

Over the past year, awareness of the United States’ immigration detention system has grown and with it has come great criticism. A report released by Amnesty International in March, “Jailed Without Justice”, illustrates the numerous problems with U.S. immigration detention and calls for heavy reforms. International human rights standards require that detention only be used in exceptional circumstances and that conditions of detention be humane and not compromise detainees’ physical and mental well-being.

Over 30,000 immigrants are in detention on any given day in the U.S. This is triple the average number detained only ten years ago. It costs $95 per person/per day in detention, while a supervised release conducted by the Vera Institute in New York yielded an average of only $12 per person/per day. Not only that, but the conditions these detainees must live in for extended periods of time are abhorrent.

 International standards require that administrative detention should not be punitive in nature, yet detainees are subjected to unnecessary restraint, including handcuffs and foot restraints. Not to mention that the growing number of detainees has made it necessary to contract 350 state and county criminal jails around the country.

In addition, conditions in detention for those who must be held do not meet the U.S.’s own standard’s of treatment. The standards that govern the conditions in detention are not enforceable, and, as a result, it is difficult for people in detention or their advocates to seek remedy of violations of those standards. The failure to provide adequate health care – including mental health services – has resulted in over 80 deaths in the past decade. Many people in immigration detention also do not have a lawyer, and lack adequate access to information on their rights and how to make their own legal claims.

These conditions not only fail to comply with international standards and ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) guidelines for the conditions of detention, but they also take away from the individual their fundamental human right to be treated with dignity. And these problems are not limited to one or two poorly-run centers, but instead signal a fundamental flaw in the entire detention system.

Regular readers of these posts know that I am an equal opportunity offender, telling it as I see it without fear or favor.  This time I tear off a few pieces from  Don’t Let ”Allahu Akbar” Become A Pejorative by  Jordan Sekulow. [Original at Huffington Post.]  As usual, I will intersperse my comments among excerpts in block quote format.

Islam continues to linger at a crossroads.  After the tragic events of 9/11, the free world has taken pains to differentiate their War on Terror from notions of a war on Islam.  We have repeatedly called Islamic terrorists “extremists” that only represent a small minority within the Islamic faith.  Considering, however, recent news involving Islamic places of worship — such as the mosque raids and revealed ties between several imams and terrorist cells — the time is ripe for innocent Muslim-Americans to stand up and prevent “Allahu Akbar” from becoming a pejorative.  In particular, peaceful, innocent adherents to the faith should more strongly challenge members of its leadership who openly condone acts of violence.

We did not start this war; Islam started it in 623.  It is a war of Islam against all Kafir. The declaration includes five verses in the Qur’an: 8:39, 8:60, 8:65, 9:29 & 9:123.  Those verses command fighting pagans, building and equipping an army to intimidate potential victims, urging Muslims to fight, fighting “people of the book” and fighting disbelievers, the closest first.  The commands in 8:39 & 9:29 are confirmed by hadith: Sahih Bukhari 1.8.367 and codified in Reliance of the Traveller, Book O 9.8 & 9.9.

Terrorism is not an enemy, it is a tactic, sanctified by 3:151 & 8:12 and exemplified by 33:26 & 59.2.   The founder of Islam was a terrorist, by his own admission: “made victorious with terror” and “Allah made me victorious by awe“ . Moe’s recitation and sunna set the standard of Islam; terrorism is the rule, not the exception. Terrorists are zealous believers, obeying Allah & emulating Moe,  not extremists.

Passive Muslims, who neither approve of, participate in nor support Jihad are hypocrites, not believers. Muslims are explicitly forbidden to question their leaders in the manner suggested.

O8.7

• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
• -6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
• -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
• -14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);
• -16- to revile the religion of Islam;
• -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

Allah made the matter explicitly clear.

33:36. It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.

Allah decreed the matter and Moe confirmed it.  Then, he exemplified it with a battle every six weeks for the last nine years of his life. No Muslim has a right to question it.

So where is the condemnation?  Where is the outrage?  Sure, we hear from ordinary Muslims who express their disgust at these attacks, but why do we hear nothing from Islamic leaders?  While the controversial Council on American Islamic Relations condemned Hasan’s actions, we also learned that a frequent speaker at CAIR events, Zaid Shakir, said that, “Islam doesn’t permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people.  If you hijack an airplane filled with the 82nd Airborne, that’s something else.”

An Imam or a King would write himself out of Islam, signing his death warrant by condemning what Allah commanded and Moe exemplified.

There is no better time for Muslims to engage in what Salman Rushdie called a “Muslim Reformation”.  Muslims, especially Muslim-Americans, should unite and collectively take back their religion.  They should demand that their leaders not only condemn acts of terrorism and jihadist violence, but also actively expel radicals from their mosques.  More importantly, if leaders fail to take the appropriate actions, they should be removed.  Covering up true problems within the faith will backfire — just ask Catholic leaders.  Democracy’s War on Islam is exactly the war Islamic terrorists have been hoping to ignite, and we must not let them succeed.

Muslims can not “take back their religion”, they have maintained possession of it; it has not been hijacked nor has it been twisted or perverted.  Muslim leaders can not condemn what Allah commanded them to do and Moe exemplified for them to emulate.

The faith is the problem; it is evil by design. The relationship between Allah and the Muslims is master: slave. Allah purchased the Muslims with admission to Paradise so they fight in his cause, kill and are killed. Don’t take my word for it, read 9:111. Its all about getting the top 20% of the spoils for Moe. Don’t take my word for it, read 8:1 & 8:41.

Islam can not be reformed. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. Allah’s word says “fight them”. Allah’s word says “cast terror”. Allah’s word can not be changed.

6:115. And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All­Hearer, the All­Knower.

10:64. For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present world (i.e. righteous dream seen by the person himself or shown to others), and in the Hereafter. No change can there be in the Words of Allâh, this is indeed the supreme success

18:27. And recite what has been revealed to you (O Muhammad ) of the Book (the Qur’ân) of your Lord (i.e. recite it, understand and follow its teachings and act on its orders and preach it to men). None can change His Words, and none will you find as a refuge other than Him.

30:30. So set you (O Muhammad ) your face towards the religion of pure Islâmic Monotheism Hanifa (worship none but Allâh Alone) Allâh’s Fitrah (i.e. Allâh’s Islâmic Monotheism), with which He has created mankind. No change let there be in Khalq­illâh (i.e. the Religion of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism), that is the straight religion, but most of men know not. [Tafsir At­Tabarî, Vol 21, Page 41]  [Emphasis added for clarity.]

If that is not iron clad enough to convince you, Moe cursed anyone who would change it; without mercy, you are destined for the fire.

[...]“I will say those people are from me. It will be said, ‘You do not know what changes and new things they did after you.’ Then I will say, ‘Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me! “[...] Sahih Bukhari 9.88.174 [Emphasis added for clarity.]

In an oddball pre-Thanksgiving op-ed piece in The Forward, Rabbi Jacob Neusner tells the story of his beginnings as a Reform Jew, his rabbinical education and career as a Conservative Jew, and his eventual return to the Reform fold.

It’s an interesting story, which you can read in full here.

Here at The Shuckle, we’ll look at a few of his more bizarre statements about Reform Judaism.

First of all, you have to understand Neusner’s dichotomy (false? jury is out on that…) of Jewish life. He declares that American Jewish life is composed of self-segregationist and integrationist elements. He places Conservative, Modern Orthodox, Reconstructionist and Reform streams in the integrationist camp, meaning that they seek to be integrated into broader society and that they find their truths in many places, including in the Torah.

The self-segregationist group, according to Neusner is composed of “Orthodox groupings such as Hasidism and yeshivish or Mitnagdic Judaism,” who find truth only in Jewish traditional learning. OK. Fine. Without giving it too much thought, this seems like a fairly apt dichotomy, though I might argue that most dichotomies of religion fail at some point. But that’s for another blog post.

Neusner is fairly “triumphalist” about Reform Judaism, as Rabbi Andy Bachman noted in a brief Facebook wall post about this today. And triumphalist he is:

Today, however, I have returned to the convictions (if not to the cuisine) of my youth — not because they are expedient but because they are compelling. After a half-century of apostasy, I affirm Reform Judaism as the American Judaism both of my personal choice and of our communal necessity. Indeed, I have come to believe that if Reform Judaism did not exist today, American Jews would have to invent it.

He then goes on to decry “The sorry state of Conservative Judaism.” I’d argue that the Conservative movement has actually been the more bold of the two lately. Just compare their Hekhsher Tzedek with the URJ’s new “Let’s eat less red meat, but not acknowledge that mindful eating is a Jewish tradition” initiative.

But then he gets to the bit that really gets me upset:

Over the past half-century, however, the integrationist Judaisms have sometimes seemed to lose sight of their convictions. Modern Orthodoxy has been under siege from its right flank, while even Reform Judaism has chosen to re-adopt some traditional rites. The outcome of this reversion to tradition has been to effectively present the integrationist Judaisms as less authentically Jewish than Orthodoxy.

He’s so close to being on the nose that it hurts me to read it.

Have “integrationist Judaisms” been seen recently as “less authentically Jewish than Orthodoxy”? Yes. But is that recent phenomenon only? I’m not sure. Is it because the Reform movement has realized that people like ritual? No.

Neusner incorrectly identifies increased ritual observances as Reform’s true plight. In my eyes, as any regular reader of this blog will know, that is the Reform intellectual community’s latest triumph! What has led to us being seen as “less authentic” is an obliviousness to or an unwillingness to thing about framing and branding, as any reader of BZ will know.

Ironically, if you buy into BZ’s reading of this situation (and I do), you will see that Neusner is guilty of the very thing that has led to the sense of diminished authenticity he’s upset about. “Reform Judaism has chosen to re-adopt some traditional rites.” Here he buys into the framing of the word “traditional” offered up by the right. He agrees with them, implying, “If it’s a ritual more common on the right, it is something truly worthy of the word traditional.”

I reject that. I’m a Jew of tradition and of Reform and there is no contradiction in terms in saying so.

What?! Pay less?  That is amazing!  ::smiles:: GO HEALTH CARE REFORM!

MIT analysis backs Obama – Mike Allen – POLITICO.com

THE Bartlett government will spend $27 million to remove the sting from one of its most unpopular reforms — a revamp of water and sewerage services…. From The Australian. Full story

This site may contain information about: indian ocean sea. For a different topic see here. The blog is also related to: sea currents.

Well, I screwed my iPhoto library up. I decided to re-arange my pictures in the internal folders….. and now iPhoto can’t find them. Stupid iPhoto. Stupid Me. If anyone knows an easy fix for this PLEASE let me know!!

So, while I’m trying to fix this….

If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn’t need to lug around a camera. ~Lewis Hine.

It all started with that quote. I looked up Lewis Hine on wiki, and since I don’t feel like writing a report, and plagiarism is dumb, here is what I found.

“Lewis Wickes Hine (September 26, 1874 – November 3, 1940) was an American sociologistand photographer. Hine used his camera as a tool for social reform. His photographs were instrumental in changing the child labor laws in the United States. ^[1]”

“In 1907, he became the photographer for the National Child Labor Committee (NCLC). Over the next decade, Hine documented child labor in American industry to aid the NCLC’s lobbying efforts to end the practice. Between 1906 and 1908, he was a freelance photographer for The Survey, a leading social reform magazine. He took all these pictures to show the country the cruelties of child labor.”

“The Library of Congress holds more than five thousand Hine photographs, including examples of his child labor and Red Cross photographs, his work portraits, and his WPA and TVA images. Other large institutional collections include nearly ten thousand of Hine’s photographs and negatives held at the George Eastman House and almost five thousand NCLC photographs at the Albin O. Kuhn Library & Gallery of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.”

But like Hine said, “If I could tell the story in words….” Here are some of his stunning photos.

]]> http://buzzinged.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/we-are-the-people-weve-been-waiting-for/ Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:01:59 +0000 Nick http://buzzinged.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/we-are-the-people-weve-been-waiting-for/

A thought-provoking site with films that make YOU think about the future of Education – take a look, it WILL make you think!

http://www.wearethepeoplemovie.com/

Have we learned anything?

The O-D opined on the old demonization of the word “parochial” again today.  They, again, make an attempt to dredge up the word “regionalization.”  Remember, like the “Regionalization” of Utica’s Water Board, which was already a regional water board that served the exact same areas as it does today.  The only thing it did was take away local power from the “region’s” most significant city, leading to its continue and rapid decline.

As I’ve stated in the past, we live in a representative form of government.  Legislators are elected to represent and advocate the specific needs of their respective districts and municipalities.  What would we think if our Congressman was more concerned with the needs of San Fransisco than Upstate New York?  It would infuriate us because we elected him to look out for US. 

The term we should familiarize ourselves with is “Localism.”  Localism draws on a wide range of movements and concerns and it proposes that by re-localizing democratic and economic relationships to the local level, social, economic and environmental problems will be more definable and solutions more easily created.

There’s no doubt that we have some major problems in NYS and Oneida County: too many levels of government, too many agencies, etc.  However, taking more power away from the cities and giving it to the suburbs that have created many of these problems that have stemmed from suburban sprawl, is NOT the answer.  How about merging the towns with Utica and Rome?  They already have the departments and infrastructure to support the sprawl.

Strikeslip, over at Fault Lines, seems to have a good grasp on the issue.

Synonym für reparatur – Synonyme – Bedeutung | Antonyme (Gegenteile) – Fremdwörter von reparatur.: Fehlerhafte Schreibweisen und Suchanfragen
reeparatur, repaaraatur, reparatuur, rreparraturr, reparattur, repparatur, eparatur, reparatu

During the summer Tea Party revolts, Obama described it as a struggle between the devil we know and the devil we don’t. It appears we have reached that tipping point where the devil we know (status quot) is becoming a better and better option.

The whole problem with the health care debate has been its neo neo liberal emphasis on cost savings. Maybe I am a tad old fashioned but trading greedy insurance companies profit for a government bureaucrat’s cost savings sounds like the same beast.

The Neo Neo Liberal virus is so strong that even an independent socialist like Bernie Sanders has argued a public option will “bring costs down” by competing with private insurance. We don’t need a public option as a safety net, nor as a non profit driven option for health care delivery, but to directly compete with private insurance itself. The problem with this whole debate has been the cost savings. The Democrats have taken a moral issue like health care and wrapped in a right wing discourse of cost savings.

The other day my mother mentioned watching a large clinic for the poor in Houston. For her this was a moral injustice that so many working folks had no access to health care. While certainly true, I pointed out that taking 40 million people and throwing them into our current system will create the right wings mythologized Canadian system.

My point here is if we want to be morally correct and deliver health care to all Americans the foundation of the health care debate is half ass backwards. Our emphasis should not be on cost savings but the major infrastructure and human capital developments that will be needed to deliver care to 40 million more citizens.

While I think the current public option will do more harm than good, its not the biggest evil out there in regards to health care reform. The great irony is that single payer, piggy backed on to Medicare would only need 51 votes in the Senate because its an existing program. But, the biggest evils out there is in the Senate plan.

Under the current Senate plan they will tax so called Cadillac plans. Cadillac being defined as any yearly employer / employee premiums of $7000 or more. Those $7000 or less plans are those with very high deductibles and high patient paid costs which are not included as health care costs. These HIINO plans may save employers money but do little to lower health care costs overall. If you are a teacher, government employee, or a union member, there is great likelihood your current plan will be taxed or be greatly reduced. Since the insurance company itself will be taxed the greater likelihood is you’ll find yourself with a high deductible and out of pocket expenses.

The Senate leery about business mandates has decided on individual mandates instead. It works like this, individuals are required to have insurance, if an employer hires someone without it, they face a fine to cover employee health care costs. It does not take an Einstein to figure which employee – insured, uninsured – that the employer will hire. In short, the Senate plan requires health insurance prior to getting a job.

While the House has been more sensitive to not putting reform on the back of workers, the public option is more than problematic. While the public option can take many forms, and as we saw recently it became the pro life option, its essence has been forming a public health insurance company to compete with the private sector. What many of these neo neo liberals fail to comprehend is that unlike the fear of the insurance executives, this competition based public option will function as an enormous dumping ground for the insurance industry. There is a far more likelihood that such a public option will serve a similar function as Fannie Mae. It will become a way for insurance companies to dump all the risk on taxpayers while receiving all the profit.

One must wonder if the whole notion of public option competition had any merit, why were not health care costs decreasing over the past 50 years with Medicare, Medicaid, and other government health care programs. If all it took was a government corporation to foster an era of competition, we should be drowning in it.

In many ways the status quot, and current health care reforms are the Devil We Don’t know. The biggest problem with health care reform thus far has been its added uncertainty to uncertainty. Listening to Obama talk about cost controls does not make me feel any more secure about my current health care. The mere fact that Obama has not mentioned infrastructure or human capital development in reference to health care reform does not make me feel more secure about 40 million more patients in our health care system. No, at best, it has made those who support universal, single payer health care feel uneasy about any reform.

I say let the Corporate Welfare Health Care Give Away Act die a natural death. Out of its ashes build upon government programs that even some tea baggers could support.

1. Lower the age of Medicare to 55 – or lower. This is the devil we know. I imagine this would cover a large chunk of the 40 million we hear about.

2. Like many states have already done increase the age of dependency coverage to 26. Another large chunk of uninsured yet not terrible expensive is this group.

3. Increase Medicare to 300% of poverty. For a family of four this would be roughly $60,000 a year.

* Its also worth noting all three of these reform only need the votes of 51 Senators.

ATR: This year we have much for which to be thankful: family, friends, and the Obama-Reid-Pelosi National Energy Tax (Cap and Trade) has not yet become law to name a few. We would like to remind you of 10 reasons you should be thinkful for that this year:

1. We don’t have to pay over $100 billion in additional taxes.
2. We don’t have to pay an additional $3.6 trillion in gas taxes.
3. We won’t lose 1.1 million jobs between 2012 and 2030 and 2.5 million each year after that.
4. We haven’t made new industries that are dependent on government handouts for their survival.
5. We don’t have a new bureaucracy in place to allocate and sell carbon credits that will increase corruption and favoritism in Washington, DC.
6. Our energy costs will not go up by $1500 per year for a family of four.
7. We won’t have our national debt increase by 26 percent by 2030. An increase of $116,600 for a family of four.
8. We won’t have protectionist tariffs to create trade wars and cause increased prices and shortages on the goods we need.
9. We won’t have a reduction in GDP of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2030.
10. We won’t have a 58% increase in gas prices

But 2010 is another matter.

Be Thankful that the media is saving you from hearing about the Global Cooling..Global Warming…Global Climate Change…Climate Change scam…

I found this on the Newstribune.com reader comment section:

Remember now, fellow travelers. The facts really don’t matter as long as the IDEA and the MESSAGE are useful in the eyes of liberals. The so-called information presented by “scientists” is only meant to illustrate the problem, not prove it. Where have y’all been? If we hadn’t listened to the warnings about global cooling 25 years ago, the planet would be plunged into a new ice age by now. And look–we’re actually getting warmer! See, calling public attention to a problem really does work. So accept what these people are telling us, and before you know it, the planet will cool down again. We are all just too dumb to make decisions for ourselves. Yesterday: Mammograms for everyone, save the breasts! Today, uhm, not so much. Global warming will go the same route. Trust me!

ABC (still ignoring the real story and still obsessed with the couple who crashed the State Dinner LAST WEEK, so be thankful they know a real news story when they see it!

Some recent studies, including one by Britain’s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research, indicate that global temperatures have plateaued during the past decade, which could undermine arguments that the Earth is undergoing a long-term warming trend because of the burning of fossil fuels. Phil Jones has denied manipulating evidence and said his comments were taken out of context.

Climate change skeptics “don’t have the science on their side anymore, so they’ve resorted to a smear campaign to distract the public from the reality of the problem and the need to confront it head-on in Copenhagen,” said Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University who was the recipient of several of the published e-mails.

But the pressure is getting to some people, even if the Media continues to ignore it with gusto:

Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.

But others:

Gavin A. Schmidt, a NASA climatologist involved in many of the e-mail exchanges, said that voluntarily disclosing more data would never satisfy the “very hard-bitten, distraught core” of climate skeptics. “The number of attacks on our integrity will actually increase since there will be more ways to twist what it is we do to support some conspiracy theory or other,” he said.

Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia and author of “Why We Disagree About Climate Change,” said the disclosures could offer a chance to finally bring the practices of climate researchers and the intergovernmental panel into the modern era, where transparency — enforced legally or illegally — is inevitable and appropriate.

“The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production,” he said in an e-mail message, “just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.”

Dr. Curry and others said that if nothing else, the e-mail correspondence suggested that climate scientists needed to show more temperance in dealing with their critics.

“We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said. “Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?”

Ah, the condescending, snotty personal attacks of the liberal caught with his hands in the cookie jar.

I guess we can be thankful they never change.

American Thinker:

Jonathan Leake, writing in the UK’s Times Online, offers a balanced overview of the scandal and this fascinating point regarding the chronology of the “breaking” of the story:

It was a powerful and controversial mix – far too powerful for some. Real Climate is a website designed for scientists who share Jones’s belief in man-made climate change. Within hours the file had been stripped from the site.

Several hours later, however, it reappeared – this time on an obscure Russian server. Soon it had been copied to a host of other servers, first in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and then Europe and America.

What’s more, the anonymous poster was determined not to be stymied again. He or she posted comments on climate-sceptic blogs, detailing a dozen of the best emails and offering web links to the rest. Jones’s statistical tricks were now public property.

Note carefully the fact that this modern shot heard round the world first found a point of entry through Russia, then Saudi Arabia, and then Turkey – next Europe, and lastly the United States.

In other words, the traditionally supposed intellectual freedom and free speech climate of the West was “stoney ground” in comparison to the accessibility of outlets under the more repressive regimes of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Perhaps the greater story is the truth itself – and its indomitable will to reveal itself through even the most unlikely of conduits and efforts of even one individual arrayed against a worldwide apparatus of dishonesty.

Jesus, in Luke 19:40, when admonished to silence the truth, made a startling claim about the geological record that collided with accepted scientific notions in His day:

And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

It would appear that the repression of truth in the scientic community and the Mainstream Media in the west has indeed caused “the stones to cry out.”

Be thankful for crying stones.

Now we just have to guard against crying wallets.

(Source: TheNRCC)

Many people in this country are short on time today.  Work, family and other obligations take nearly our entire time.  There is not much left for personal time to ourselves.  Not much time is left to be politically or religiously active or start a business.  For the good of the country, the good of the economy, and most of all the good of ourselves we must recover some of this time. Three areas of opportunity present themselves for recovering some of our precious time. 

WAITING: Airport delays are among the most lengthy and the most variable delays we face.  For example, the last time I flew to Chicago, the airport delays took longer than the flight itself, on both the way there and back.  Certain delays are due to security checks that don’t seem very useful, are invasive, but are also politically touchy to remove due to peoples’ fear of terrorism – (which are not to be ignored or taken lightly).  The airlines themselves are also much to blame for not having planes ready to go on time.  There have been proposals for years for a Fliers’ bill of rights that addresses airport delay due to airlines. It should be strengthened to require airlines to refund some or all of the ticket price depending on how many hours the customer has to wait.

Doctor’s offices schedule patients to maximize their profit, not to get patients in and out on time.  (For the record, I just fired my doctor for this, and her $140 tetanus shot).  A patients bill of rights similar to the proposed Fliers’ bill of rights, specifying free service if the wait is longer than X, would go a long way to solving the problem.

Phone support queues, such as when calling your credit card issuer or phone company can last an upwards of an hour.  To add insult to injury, they also like to play ads while you wait.  Lately some companies have added a feature where you can give them your account # and phone # and they will call you back at a time of your choosing instead of waiting.  It should be required of all companies to give their customers this option.  This need not be an onerous new regulation: just providing an option to leave voicemail would be acceptable.

Checkout lines at stores are ripe for reform.  In the 1990s self service check out was
introduced.  Generally these are no faster than a human cashier, because of all their error.  I believe we have all heard “*beep* please wait for cashier assistance” far too many times.  I know many people like these lines (because they can verify that the scanned price is correct) and do not advocate their removal.  I do advocate that they be made to work properly without waiting for a cashier to be called to assist every 2nd customer.  For example stores like Wal-Mart, allow their checkout lines to form 15-20 minute queues – even when most of their registers are open.  I am not sure how to solve this problem – but it has to be done.  15-20 minutes x 6 stops per family per week = 1.5-2 hours/week x 52 weeks per year = 78 to 104 hours per family per year is more than 3 or 4 entire days per family per year spent standing in line.

Several people I know have proposed some solutions to waiting:
$1 shop online – this is great if present privacy problems can be resolved.  (See my upcoming series on privacy).
$2 make waiting more productive.  This can work to the extent that you can conduct your business, worship, etc, in the checkout line.  I read in lines to improve myself and my skill-base for my career – so I am sure others could do something along these lines.
$3 Finally it was suggested that, a person could record his time spent waiting in line, multiply it by his hourly wage, and have it deducted from his bill.  Heaven help the company that delays a million dollar a year CEO for half an hour.

WORKING:  Presently, the 5 day 40 hour work week is standard.  This leaves 5 evenings and 2 weekend days to service our family and other obligations.  Good luck having any time left for yourself.  (I realize that some blue collar workers earn time and a half by working beyond this, and many white collar professionals and managers are forced to work beyond this by their company for no additional compensation.  They could certainly put in some portion of a 5th workday each week if they chose; perhaps by telecommuting.)

Lately many companies have been experimenting with flex time and the 4 day work week.  Flex time allow employees to schedule their day such that they can service all of their obligations around their work.  The 4 day work week allows the employee to work 4 10 hour days instead of 5 8hour days, thereby gaining an extra useable day on the weekend.  For many employers, this makes sense too.  Any office building operating Monday-Friday 8-5, could have all of their workforce be in at least 1 day a week together so that meetings can be scheduled, and then sign up for any other 3 days they please.  Retail and service operations would especially benefit from this too, because they could have more employees around before and after operating hours to restock shelves, clean and so on.  Likewise, a call center, hospital or a steel mill operating 24/7 with either 3 shifts or 4 turns rotating in every 8 hours could use 10 hour blocks instead to staff their operation just as well.

Employees would benefit by having a 3rd useable day off every week.

DRIVING:  There are about 300 million people in this country.  About half of us work.  Nearly all of us workers commute to our job.  Many of us have long-mileage trips.  Many of those trips take unnecessarily long to make; the average American spends ½ hour commuting, each way, to work.  If we could save some of that time, as a society we would be better off.  Families could spend more time together and people would have more time to relax.   Roughly 300,000,000 people x ½ work x 2 trips per day x ½ hour average per trip multiplies out to tell us that American spend roughly 150 million man hours are spent in a car commuting to and from work each day.

What if we could save some of that time?  25% would be roughly 37 million man hours saved per day.  To the average American, that would mean saving 15 minutes every day.  Multiply that by 250 commuting days per year and the average American would have roughly 2¼   extra full 24 hour days each year to do something other than sit in a car.  So how could we do it?

First we should establish some ground rules:  (1) whatever changes are made should not increase driving fatalities.  (2) whatever changes are made shouldn’t cost a lot of money.

There are many things that could be done.  Most commutes involve a mix of highway and city driving, so both should be addressed.  Many of the worst commutes involve long delays due to high traffic, construction or poorly designed intersections – which makes these ripe opportunities to work on.

Highway driving is an easy fix: raise the speed limit to 85mph on all highways.  Insurance companies compile a slew of statistics showing that higher speed is associated with higher fatalities.  More careful researchers note that it is the difference in speed between the many cars on the road that lead to accidents and fatalities.  So when raising the speed limit, we should also raise the minimum to 70 or 75mph .  Excepting certain collectors’ antique cars there are no cars on the road that can’t do at least 70 or 75mph.  It doesn’t cost hardly anything to do this.  Many motorists already drive at these speeds in defiance of the law, and seem quite safe doing it.  Indeed, the British Medical Journal noted in 2006 that British highway fatalities per year actually increased slightly after installing speed enforcement cameras (studied 1996-2004) to slow their drivers down -i.e. speed is not the dangerous and important factor that we are led to believe. Obviously, in severe weather, one would drive at a safe and reasonable (slower) speed – no one wants tp do 70-85mph on snow and ice.  Also, local government would have to stay on top of potholes, read: Canton, Ohio, where the potholes often seem to be more numerous than the sands by the sea, and they can appear to be large enough to float ocean-going vessels.  All other things equal, the average American motorist, could save a maximum of 8 minutes a day or 1 ½ days per year.

City driving is more difficult.  It depends very much on delays due to traffic and intersections.  1 possible reform would be to raise the speed limit on most roads that are not highways to 40 mph.  Critics argue that in certain situations involving on-street parking or older (small dense) residential neighborhoods, that 25mph makes sense.  I agree with them on this.  No one wants to run over a child or have any other kind of accident.  But everywhere else, 40 mph would make sense and make a big difference.  Enacting this reform would save the average American commuter a maximum of a third of a day per year.  It would save us even more time when running our errands.  This is not an expensive change either.  It would also help for all the cities in a given metropolitan area to cooperate in synchronizing their stoplights.  Pairs of multilane 1 way streets with timed lights have significantly reduced travel time in many cities across the nation.

Reducing delays are the biggest improvement opportunity of all.  When I first started my previous job, my 30 mile commute took 65 minutes on average – event though it was 2/3 highway driving with a 65mph speed limit.  By leaving for work at 6AM instead of 6:55AM, I found I could reduce this time to 35 minutes.  I avoided traffic, drove 40 and 80mph instead of 25, 35 and 65mph and had more favorable stoplight cycles.  In practical terms, I saved 10½  24 hour days each year.

Herein lies a large part solution: it’s cheap and easy to change the time at which we commute.  As companies allow more flex time and telecommuting, this reduces the peak traffic densities on our road ways.  We can improve this by having governments pass ordinances that non-customer service buildings open before 7:30 or after 8:30 in order to spread out the load.

This still leaves the matter of construction delays.  Most delays form when a roadway is reduced by 1 or more lanes to be worked on.  2 innovative solutions have appeared lately, but not yet widely.  (1) do the work at night, and reopen the entire road each morning.  (2)  Rather than close down many miles of highway all at once, just close down the section that needs to be closed in order to do work and cure the cement properly.

More creative ideas yet are worth exploring.  Many professional people could telecommute to work at least 1x per week, thereby saving at least 20% of travel time.  Moving to a 4 10hour day work week would certainly save 20% of commuting time for everyone.

If all these ideas were implemented, the average American could easily save at least 1 to 2/3  of his driving time each year.  Imagine what you would do with an extra 20-40 minutes every day.

I recently heard my aunt’s parrot make a door-slamming noise and shout ‘FUCK YOU!’.  Apparently the bird had been sold to my aunt by a couple who divorced immediately after.  My aunt, who divorced too, years before she got the bird, speculates that the woman kicked the man out of the bedroom because he was a male chauvinist pig who wouldn’t help with the housework.

Decades ago, when men earned all the money in a household, and women stayed home all day, men got the idea that they didn’t need to help women with housework and child raising. Today, it is not possible in most professions for a man’s income alone to support a family. So women now work as much and as hard as men. It only makes sense that they split the child raising and housework duties evenly too. Just as employers require employees to cross train in additional skills and back up other employees, so to family members help each other out. Most men appreciate sports. We surely can understand teamwork. I fully believe in equal responsibilities and rights. But that’s where it stops.

No woman is ever going to kick me out of my bedroom or house. I pay the mortgage on that house on time every month. I put 20% of the purchase price down on that house to buy it – out of my own money. I put $25,000 of materials into renovating it (a century home) – and I did the work with my 2 bare hands.

To be fair, woe be to any man that thinks he is going to marry a rich woman and walk off with half her stuff. I would like to beat such men personally! (if one can consider them men at all).

In this country, the divorce law requires the man and the woman to split up their assets equally at the divorce, in the absence of a prenuptial agreement. Any woman I marry will sign one of these agreements renouncing her legal right, in the event of a divorce, to anything that I had before the marriage. And I don’t want her stuff either – its her stuff.

…which brings me to a reform: The law should be changed so that you don’t need to go through the ugly step of asking your beloved wife (or husband)-to-be for a prenuptial agreement. Marriage should be all about love, and not about money!

All of this implies a total attack on all problems, a total mobilization of resources…This programme represents an almost perfect realization of the model of ‘Economic Nationalism in Developing States,’ worked out by H. Johnson.

In Ghana all banks and most trade were foreign controlled, in addition, the country was too small to support a modern industrial base.

Bureaucracy is the collective organizational structure, procedures, protocols, and set of regulations in place to manage activity, usually in large organizations and government.it is represented by standardized procedure (rule-following) that guides the execution of most or all processes within the body;. A bureaucracy traditionally does not create policy but, rather, enacts it. Law, policy, and regulation normally originates from a leadership, which creates the bureaucracy to put them into practice. In reality, the interpretation and execution of policy, etc. can lead to informal influence. A bureaucracy is directly responsible to the leadership that creates it, such as a government executive or board of directors.As a matter of practicality, the bureaucracy is where the individual will interface with an organization such as a government etc., rather than directly with its leadership.

Midwest Voices: I suddenly realized how easy it might be to get “the bureaucracy” working for you. If there existed a “consensus” on what the greater good should be- and maybe even the means to get there (ends justifying the means) by the various ruling elites in this country (and/or world), then the few people willing to take a personal hit for justice might never get his or her message out due to the machinery of the bureaucracy working against them.

The bureaucracy doesn’t question orders or take the initiative to question assumptions. The bureaucracy obeys. And once the government bureaucracy gets moving in a certain direction it isn’t that easy to get it derailed- no matter how idiotic what they are doing seems. It is a self-licking ice cream cone, as some call it. Paradigms are not questioned nor directions changed- until maybe there’s a lot of embarrassing press and Congressional inquiries.

ClimateGate, challenging the “bureaucracy” and “the consensus” that the Global Warming Religionists have built up. And how the media is on board with the “consensus” and unwilling to question it.

Just like Health Care Reform.

Just Like ACORN.

Just Like Cap & Trade.

Just Like “terrorism”, a word a Liberal can’t even think let alone discuss.

The wheels of bureaucracy grind very slowly.

And when the media is in on it. It’s positively Orwellian.

IBD:  Here’s a dirty little secret about the New York Times: It likes to leak things. Important things. Things that change the course of the public conversation. From the Pentagon Papers to the ruined terrorist-surveillance programs of the Bush era, the Times has routinely found that secrecy is a danger and sunlight is a disinfectant.

Until now. A troublesome hacker recently released e-mails going to and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain, e-mails that exposed how the “scientific experts” cited so often by the media on global warming are guilty of crude political talk, attempts at censoring opponents and twisting scientific data to support their policy agenda.

The e-mails prove just how dishonest this left-wing global warming agenda truly is.

And now suddenly, the New York Times has found religion and won’t publish these private e-mails. Environmental reporter Andrew Revkin, who’s more global warming lobbyist than reporter, quoted — sparsely — from the e-mails, but declared that he would not post these texts on his “Dot Earth” blog on the Times Web site: “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”

That rule didn’t apply to things like the disclosure of the Swift global bank monitoring program against terrorists.

Unlike our secret terror-fighting efforts, there is no grave matter of national security to protect here. There is only a danger of shredding the undeserved reputation of some global-warming alarmists as nonpartisan, nonideological, just-the-facts scientists with no preconceived environmentalist or statist agenda.

The networks also have ignored this emerging scandal with all the ignorance they could muster.

But in the seven days after the New York Times revealed the existence of an NSA program to monitor communications to terrorist cells abroad, the three networks ran a combined 23 stories about the program, more than one story, per network, per night.

How many have run stories on ClimateGate?

Virtually none, and the few, like CNN’s micro-mini blow-off is about what you get.

It doesn’t fit THEIR agenda.

Their bureaucracy.

Their “perceived wisdom”

Their “consensus”.

So it’s no big deal.

Charles Krauthammer:  The United States has the best health care in the world but, because of its inefficiencies, also the most expensive.

The fundamental problem with the 2,074-page Senate health care bill (as with its 2,014-page House counterpart) is that it wildly compounds the complexity by adding hundreds of new provisions, regulations, mandates, committees and other arbitrary bureaucratic inventions.

Worse, they’re packed into a monstrous package without any regard to each other. The only thing linking these changes — such as the 118 new boards, commissions and programs — is political expediency.

Each must be able to garner just enough votes to pass. There isn’t even a pretense of a unifying vision or conceptual harmony.

The result is an overregulated, overbureaucratized system of surpassing arbitrariness and inefficiency. Throw a dart at the Senate tome:

• You’ll find mandates with financial penalties — the amounts picked out of a hat.

• You’ll find insurance companies (who live and die by their actuarial skills) told exactly what weight to give risk factors, such as age. Currently insurance premiums for 20-somethings are about one-sixth the premiums for 60-somethings. The House bill dictates that the young shall now pay at minimum one-half; the Senate bill, one-third — numbers picked out of a hat.

• Y ou’ll find sliding scales for health-insurance subsidies — randomly picked — that will radically raise marginal income-tax rates for middle-class recipients, among other crazy unintended consequences.

The bill is irredeemable. It should not only be defeated. It should be immolated, its ashes scattered over the Senate swimming pool.

But the Bureaucracy demands to be fed. And the Democrats want to gorge it on 1/6 of GDP of this country.

They believe it benefits them.

The Frankenstein’s Monster of Bureaucracy will be created by them and they will be Frankenstein.

They will still have the illusion of being in control of it.

Even after the creature breaks out and terrorize everyone it won’t be their fault.

And considering they were off by on Medicare cost projections. They  were 1/9 of the reality and it’s getting worse every day. Can you imagine what this going to look like in your kid’s life time??

God help us all.

(oh, sorry left wingers that was a right-wing extremist evil Christian moment)

Allah Akbar.

Feel better now

Try Nate Silver, a statistician and liberal-media favorite, recently named one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People. He says scientists in this exchange were unethical:

“Dr. Jones, talking candidly about sexing up a graph to make his conclusions more persuasive. This is not a good thing to do — I’d go so far as to call it unethical — and Jones deserves some of the loss of face that he will suffer.”

But then he adds the typical liberal disclaimer: “Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in both academia and the private sector — have you ever looked at the graphs in the annual report of a company which had a bad year? And it seems to happen all too often on both sides of the global warming debate.”

When conservatives are wrong, conservatives are wrong. When liberals are wrong, everyone does it, don’t you know?

It’s no big deal.

Nothing to see here.

Hey, did you remember Mark Foley? , wasn’t he just awful…

In another e-mail from Jones to Mann, the Washington Post reported, there’s talk of cutting skeptical scientists out of the official U.N. report: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

But you can’t take that literally, it was “out of context”. That’s not really what he said…

But Tea Bag Protests are all shills for Insurance Companies.

And anyone who denies the “consensus” on Global Warming must be a shill for the fossil fuels industry…

Fascinating, isn’t it folks.

This kind of censor-your-opponents activity ought to disgust a journalist who values openness and rigorous debate above all.

Every day the networks avoid this story, they’re saying they don’t really care about either of those values. In fact, they become willing accomplices in a cover-up of global proportions.

So what else aren’t they willing to tell you? Hmmmm….

That is, after they get over their obsession with the couple who crashed the State Dinner, that is.

After all, that is really big news.

And ClimateGate is not.

And the formation of massive new bureaucracies is not either.

Nor is massive tax increases in a recession.

And we all know that bureaucrats are vastly more tolerant, kind, flexible, efficient, and more willing to help you out in a real crisis.

Don’t worry, be happy.

“Hope and Change” is on it’s way.

Nurse Nancy Pelosi

Here’s a couple quick examples of crafty politics.

Nurse Pelosi called the House vote on healthcare ”bipartisan”. Right… technically, it is bipartisan. However, In the real world of common-sense, one republican vote doesn’t make it bipartisan. Nurse Nancy, you are crafty with words…

Patient Dick Armey

Former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, at the Freedomworks Rally in Raleigh said, “Speaker Pelosi, you have a responsibility for my liberty, not my liver.”  Mr. Armey, it looks like she’s already caring for your liver…and you want Nurse Nancy to keep providing your care.

It’s ironic that the logo (also found here) from his event borrows from the graphic style of the socialists. Dick, isn’t that where your group claims we’re headed?  Isn’t that crafty?

New Socialist design

Retro Socialist design

 If you like the retro look of the communist era, you can order the shirt here. The design is cool.

 Psalm 37:1  A Psalm of David. Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.
2  For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.
3  Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed.
4  Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.
5  Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass.
6  And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.
7  Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.
8  Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.
9  For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
10  For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
11  But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
12  The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth.
13  The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.
14  The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation.
15  Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken.
16  A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked.
17  For the arms of the wicked shall be broken: but the LORD upholdeth the righteous.
18  The LORD knoweth the days of the upright: and their inheritance shall be for ever.
19  They shall not be ashamed in the evil time: and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied.
20  But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
21  The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous showeth mercy, and giveth.
22  For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off.
23  The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.
24  Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.
25  I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.
26  He is ever merciful, and lendeth; and his seed is blessed.
27  Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell for evermore.
28  For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.
29  The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.
30  The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.
31  The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide.
32  The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.
33  The LORD will not leave him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged.
34  Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.
35  I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.
36  Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.
37  Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace.
38  But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off.
39  But the salvation of the righteous is of the LORD: he is their strength in the time of trouble.
40  And the LORD shall help them, and deliver them: he shall deliver them from the wicked, and save them, because they trust in him.

It’s your choice now too..

I feel very bitch/babble/rant tonight. Awake, as always. Ok, my spacebar isn’t cooperating. That just pisses me off. Lets start there…

I keep seeing commercials for these $1.95 home phone services. I personally know they’re federally/state/government funded. (No bitching please, I’m not sure which, just covering all bases.) So…we have gov funding for a phone….if I have a heart attack, or fall down some stairs, or get stabbed by an illegal, I HAVE A PHONE, I CAN CALL FOR HELP!!! But I will GO BROKE and BE IN DEBT FOREVER from the medical bills resulting from any of the above happenings. A couple of years ago, I ran out of insulin, had no way to get more, so I had a friend take me to the ER. I was admitted, treated, told I was in really shitty shape. Ketoacidosis. I was pretty far gone, hours, not days, from shutting down. Ok, dying. It’s happened to me a few times, mostly due to total denial about my diabetes and hating it a lot. But, this last time, it was just a case of, I couldn’t get any insulin. Not true, I could have asked someone for money. But, new in town, trying to be independent and take care of myself and my kids….beg for money from people I’ve known maybe a month. Um, no. I know, I know. Fuckin dumb. So, I was in the ER for half a day, they wanted to admit me and keep me overnight at least. But, no one was home with my kids, and I had a job interview the next morning. So I left, against advice, with some insulin. Now I have a bill for almost $6K. Which has gone to a really buff collections agency, with a very intimidating reputation. Well, they can’t garnish wages I don’t have.

So, in summary:

I owe thousands of dollars. Because I’m foolish, but I didn’t want to die. Still don’t. I am making sacrifices elsewhere now, so I can take a bit better care of myself. Buy test strips, check my blood sugars, all that jazz. But I still haven’t had an actual medical exam or any kind of medical care in about 4 years. Do-It-Yourself Diabetes. I’ve been planning on making a sign, for any more Health Care Reform rallies I go to. Just, “Pre-Existing Condition, I can’t wait for reform.” Saw one like that somewhere. I’d like to simplify the wording. It’s a hard thing to express. Like telling people about domestic violence you’ve been through. Even if someone has had a similar experience and empathizes, no one can ever really understand what you’ve been through. I think that goes for many people, many situations, all heartbreaks.

I’m so tired of faking it, acting like it’s ok, I’m on top of it, not worried, don’t need a doctor. I am terrified. Really truly scared to death and blocking it out every minute of every day. I’ll give up my phone, my cellphone, the icemaker in my fridge. Just let me have a doctor I can afford.

Anything I would add would only detract from this. From a great commenter and American on this blog, Joyce,

“CW,…. I received this email from a very good friend of mine.  He is honest and I know that this is from him.
 
 Just more good things about Sarah Palin.  She is an amazing woman who I know loves this country. I hope you can read thru it with out tears.  I couldn’t!!!!!!
 
Joyce”
“This e-mail was sent to me today by my Step-sister xxxxxx xxxxxxx. She took her Dad  (my Step-Dad) to meet Sarah Palin yesterday when she was in Birmingham doing a book signing promoting her newly released book. The date was November 22, 2009. I was amazed to hear the story and called her to verify that it happened to her and not just a “forward” that I so often receive.
   I took my Dad to meet Sarah Palin tonight. He wore his Marine’s hat and his Purple Heart pin. Before we entered the signing place, we were stopped by Sarah’s aunt. She grabbed my dad’s hand  and told him thanks for his service to our country. He was so proud. Next, we waited our turn to meet Sarah. She shook my hand and we exchanged greetings. When I introduced her to my dad, she held (not shook) his hand and thanked him for her freedom – yes, her freedom. She thanked him for his service to our  country. My dad began to cry. She
 asked where he served, and she told him that her book was in honor of him and his dedication to America . My Dad thanked Sarah for her service and told her how proud he was of her. She then thanked me for bringing my Dad and said God Bless you.

As we were leaving we were stopped by a man who asked to meet my  Dad and it turned out  to be Sarah’s Dad. He hugged me and thanked me for bringing my Dad & then hugged him and told him it meant so much to him that we took the time to stand in line to meet his daughter. Trying to find his voice, with a face full of falling tears, my Dad said, no… Thank you…thank you for your daughter.
 As we left, tears filled  Sarah’s father’s eyes and everyone, incuding security and all told him goodbye. As we were leaving, we learned that Sarah stopped by Fort Hood unexpectedly and donated the money from her book signing today to the victim’s families. She is a Great lady!

xxxxxx xxxxxxx

Birmingham, AL”

Resurrection

Resurrection
By Leo Tolstoy

This is not so much a novel as it is a treatise of Tolstoy’s imagination for reform of Russia’s criminal justice system. Tolstoy chooses a reluctant, sinning savior to illuminate what he perceives as the mockery of justice that we call criminal law. We track the spiritual journey of the nobleman Nekhlyudov, who is called to serve on the jury for the trial of a prostitute accused of theft and murder. As he looks at the accused, he is startled to realize that she is Katusha, the poor girl who was once his childhood sweetheart, whom he raped, impregnated and abandoned 15 years ago. Nekhlyudov comes to terms with his guilt and, in the process, becomes an unwilling social justice reformer.

It’s not the story you want it to be. Despite his attempts to rectify his unspeakable crimes against Katusha, she doesn’t want to marry him; she wants nothing to do with him. Nekhlyudov follows her to her imprisonment in Siberia after she is wrongfully convicted, but she still rebuffs all of his requests of forgiveness. When he first comes to her in jail and reveals his identity, she sees directly through his pose of penitence, and cries out:

“Go away from me! I am a convict and you are a prince, and you’ve no business here,” she cried, her whole face distorted with anger, snatching her hand from him. “You want to save yourself through me,” she continued, hurrying to pour out every feeling in her heart. “You had your pleasure from me in this world, and now you want to get your salvation through me in the world to come!”

Nekhlyudov, however, is persistent and remains devoted to Katusha and to the task of improving her lot. The more time he spends with Katusha and her lot, the more he realizes the universal injustice that is perpetrated against her class. He is appalled by what he recognizes; it is as if he was learning to see again. The great moment of illumination for Nekhlyudov comes when he realizes his own culpability:

“We do not merely do nothing to get of the conditions in which such people are born—we actually encourage the institutions which produce them. We all know what these institutions are: the mills, the factories, the workshops, the inns, the pot-houses, the brothels. And far from wiping out establishments of this sort—considering them necessary, we encourage and regulate them. We rear not one but millions of such people, and then arrest one and imagine that we have done something, protected ourselves, and that nothing more can be required of us, now that we have transported him from Moscow to Irkutsk,” reflected Nekhlyudov with unusual verve and clarity…

This fresh understanding ushers in a spiritual revolution in Nekhlyudov’s life. The problems of humanity are not distant and unsolvable to him anymore; they are issues that he is both responsible for and capable of transforming. It only takes one person to change the trajectory of a life.

 “It only needed one person,” though Nekhlyudov, looking at the sickly scared face of the lad, “to take pity on him when poverty made his father send him from the village to the town, and lend a helping hand; or later, after he had come to town—if there had been someone to say, ‘I wouldn’t do that, Vanya, it isn’t right,’ when at the end of twelve hours’ work in the factory the older men were tempting him to go to the pot-house—the boy wouldn’t have gone, or got into bad ways, and would not have done anything wrong.”

We follow Nekhlyudov through 560 pages of this personal revolution and patiently wait for him to change the laws, to petition the corrupt government to overthrow its criminal justice system. But these macro-level changes never come. The only macro-level change we witness is within Nekhlyudov himself. But, Tolstoy whispers, that is enough, isn’t it? The last lines of the novel read with power and conviction:

That night an entirely new life began for Nekhlyudov, not so much because he had entered into new conditions of life but because everything that happened to him from that time on was endowed with an entirely different meaning for him. How this new chapter of his life will end, the future will show.

Tolstoy’s answer of how to initiate change is to begin within; seek first spiritual rightness, achieve resurrection, and effect that resurrection in others. It’s the story of the gospel in Tolstoy’s imagination.

READ IF: You want to know the prerequisites for changing the world.