Well 23rd District New York; Are You Happy Now?
Nov 8, 2009 Political
Democrat Bill Owens was elected to the Congress in New York’s 23rd District last week and he wasted no time breaking four campaign promises. Democrats rushed him in so they could obtain his vote on health care, one he said he would not give. He voted yes when the bill was passed in the dead of the night (once again a bill passed under cover of darkness). It was pointed out that just before the election he said he supported the bill (as it was written at that time) but had opposed the public option, something his constituents also oppose.
The other promises:
The House Health reform bill contains sections that cut Medicare benefits, tax existing health care benefits, and increases taxes on the middle class, yet Mr. Owens stated today that he will now vote in favor of those things contrary to what he had promised the voters of NY’s 23rd Congressional District that he would vote against. The Gouverneur Times
The article points out that the bill will also provide benefits for illegals, a compromise to placate the Hispanic Caucus and in direct opposition to what Obama said in his speech to the Joint session of Congress. The was the speech where Joe Wilson yelled; “You lie!”.
Turns out Wilson was right and Obama will continue to be a liar because there is no way he will veto the bill should the illegal immigrant issue survive the Senate.
Owens was not in office for more than a few days when he broke four campaign promises. Hoffman would have opposed the bill and looked out for constituents. Owens decided he wanted a short lived Congressional career by instead lying to them.
Democrats will say and do anything to get into office. Look at all the promises Obama has broken. He lied and it would appear that, as with Obama, Owens’ promises have a shelf life as well.
Sadly, the people of New York’s 23rd voted for a pig in a poke. Will people never learn?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bill owens, health care, illegals, lies, Obama, tax increases
No H1N1 Shortage At Gitmo
Nov 1, 2009 Political
The terrorists at Gitmo are considered high risk for the H1N1 swine flu so they will be getting inoculated (it will be offered to them) before many people who are citizens of this country and who did not try to do us harm because inmates are considered a higher risk group.
Besides, we can’t have Muslims getting the Swine Flu. That might be considered a hate crime or something.
If the distribution of the vaccine has been like it is here then they will probably have gotten the flu or the threat will be over before they do.
A little flu hits and the government gins up an emergency. People are prioritized so the medication can be rationed and then we end up with lines all over the place as people stand in line hoping they will get the vaccine before it runs out.
Of course, if people are worried about getting the vaccine or if they do not have health care for that matter, they can always get arrested.
Criminals get free health care and are a higher priority for vaccines.
Even terrorists.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: gitmo, health care, swine flu, terrorists, vaccine
Why No Tort Reform?
Oct 31, 2009 Political
Because Tort Lawyers have bought and paid for the Democratic Party
The monstrosity of a health care bill is not good for the country. The Democrats claim it is deficit neutral and that it will save money in the long run but that is a lie. Nothing the government does saves money. Massachusetts has the same kind of plan and that state is rationing care and raising rates.
If the health care takeover was a good idea it would take effect immediately but Obama and his Democrats know that it is not going to perform as claimed and that is why it will not take effect until after the 2012 presidential election. Obama hopes to win a second term and he knows that he cannot win if the bill takes effect immediately because by the next election the flaws will be quite evident and he will be booted out the door.
The claim of the Democrats is that they are trying to save money. Democrats do not save money. For that matter, it is hard to find anyone from either party that is good at saving money. Having said that, there are plenty of plans that can actually save money. The Republicans introduced a number of reform items to do just that and the Democrats voted against them. Then Senator Barack Obama, the guy who says we have to do this NOW, voted against them. If saving money were truly a priority then tort reform, which was part of those plans, would be included. Tort reform would save money and no matter how much it ended up being, it would be saved. But Democrats can’t have tort reform because the tort lawyers own a piece of that party.
The bill that Pelosi introduced demonstrates that very clearly. The bill provides a payoff to the tort lawyers as evidenced by this as reported at Big Government:
Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages. [emphasis in quote at Big Government]
There will be incentives if states adopt alternatives to liability litigation (like perhaps arbitration) but if a state has enacted the alternatives of limiting attorney’s fees or capping damages then it is not eligible. Those two items constitute tort reform. Limiting attorney’s fees and capping awards are the meat and potatoes of tort reform but if any state uses that then it loses the ability to receive incentives for any alternatives to litigation that it might devise.
This is a way for the government to ensure that states do not take it upon themselves to enact tort reform. This is the payoff to the tort lawyers. Democrats (and they wrote this bill) have ensured they will keep their buddies in tort law in business.
It is nothing more than a payoff and it stinks. The Federal Government is cutting states off at the knees to protect the lawyers by including a provision that discourages them from enacting tort reform, an issue the Democrats do not want addressed. Obama was blowing smoke up our collective rear ends when he said he would look at, and consider, options for tort reform.
This bill weighs 19 pounds and is nearly 2000 pages. This is but one item that pays off supporters and in the next week we will see more information as people read through it.
Writing a bill behind closed doors, without Republican input, and hiding this kind of stuff in it is not my definition of transparent.
How do people not laugh when the ObaMao Reich claims to be the most transparent in history?
Maybe we could have asked Pelosi that when she introduced it if she had not barred everyone except those chosen by her from attending the event. That is another demonstration of this Reich’s transparency.
Wake up America.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: health care, lawyers, lies, Obama, payoffs, Pelosi, tort reform, transparency
And They Want To Make Your Medical Records Electronic
Oct 30, 2009 Political
There is no doubt that computers have changed our lives and the information storage and retrieval have made life much easier (until something goes wrong). Information can be shared all over the world and that information sometimes means the difference between life and death.
The government wants our medical records to be electronic. There are provisions in the health care takeover to make that happen. It would have advantages because patient information could be shared between medical professionals and tests would not have to be repeated because results would be readily available.
The problem is, electronic information is always under attack. SPAM is a minor nuisance and we all deal with it but identity theft is a crime that, in the electronic age, allows people with evil motives to destroy lives. There is an entire industry devoted to stopping identity theft and it is an industry that makes lots of money because the demand is high. Identity theft can come from anyone. Chuck Schumer was involved in stealing Michael Steele’s financial information.
Identity theft is not the only concern. People have a lot of personal information stored electronically and medical records contain some of the most sensitive information about us. HIPAA was passed under Bill Clinton to help protect electronic medical information because it contains things that most people do not want everyone knowing. HIPAA has not been the be all, end all so imagine how bad it would be if everyone had electronic medical records and they were breached?
The Federal Government had its files of House ethics investigations compromised because of carelessness. A junior ethics staff member was working on the files at home and they were obtained through peer-to-peer networking software.
The document was leaked to The Washington Post after a junior ethics staff member saved it on the hard drive of a home computer. The staff member, who had information sharing software, didn’t realize that someone could download the file but was subsequently fired anyway.
A House staff member, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss the matter, said the committee employee’s actions were inadvertent but violated House rules requiring the safeguarding of official documents. Breitbart
These are the people who want to “safeguard” our sensitive medical information.
While it is commendable that Congress actually looks at the potential violations of members (though it rarely does anything about them) it is fair to state that it does not want the information about who is being investigated compromised (and certainly not made public). Members of Congress do not want their names associated with ethics violations because even if they are cleared, it looks bad. There are members of both major parties on the list (should it surprise anyone Murtha is one of them?) and I am sure none of them wanted the list made public.
But it was and all because a staffer, who was allowed to work on the list at home, made a mistake. What would happen if this kind of mistake occurred with our medical information?
This is not the first breach the government has had with information it is supposed to safeguard. The VA had a laptop stolen (when it allowed someone to take it home to work) and it contained the personal information on a huge number of veterans. The FBI lost a number of computers containing classified information and thumb drives stolen from service members who carelessly left them in computers in Iraq were found in street markets. They contained sensitive information.
What guarantee do we have that this kind of carelessness will not happen with regard to our medical records?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Congress, ethics probes, health care, information breach, medical records
Gibbs Gets One Right (Almost)
Oct 27, 2009 Political
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a statement today that is almost completely correct though he probably thought it was more of a veiled threat. The statement came after someone asked about Senator Joe Lieberman, who vowed to filibuster the Reid plan (or any plan) if it contains a government option. This is how the exchange was reported:
Asked about Lieberman’s threat to filibuster a final vote on the Reid plan, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “I haven’t seen the report from Sen. Lieberman or why he’s saying what he’s saying. I think Democrats and Republicans alike will be held accountable by their constituents who want to see health care reform enacted this year.” [emphasis mine] Politico
It is difficult to gauge what support for the public option is because various polls report drastically different results. An ABC/WaPo poll shows 57-40 in favor of (up 5 points from August) but Rasmussen says support is soft:
Polling on the health care topic by many firms has created some confusion. In particular, polls on the “public option” show a wide variety of results. A recent poll in The Washington Post found that 57% support a government-run health insurance company to compete with private insurers, but our polling shows that support is very soft. In fact, people are strongly opposed to a public option if they think it could lead employers to drop the existing coverage they provide employees. The fact that results are so subject to change based upon minor differences in question wording suggests that voters do not have firm opinions on the public option.
The issue is all over the place and that probably reflects confusion on the part of the public because the issue changes almost hourly. The polling to date suggests that those under 30 (the me generation) are in favor of the reform and the public option while those over 65 are not.
Back to Gibbs’ statement, he is right about paying at the polls but in all elections, and particularly midterm elections, the most reliable voting block is the elderly. Senior citizens show up in very large numbers on election day. The young do not generally show up and it is highly unlikely that they will turn out like they did during the last presidential election when they were excited about voting for ObaMao.
Those who are pushing this health care takeover will pay for it at the polls. Harry Reid is down to 41% in his home state and the last time I looked he lost to the generic Republican. Reid is digging his grave deeper but a lot of things can happen in the next 12 months. The economy will be a big drag if it stays bad but any improvement would help Democrats. There is some easing of the downturn but I think that is temporary. The recovery will be a W and we are on that first uptick. When inflation hits next year and we head back down the Democrats will have hell to pay.
So will any other politician deemed to have had a hand in this. This would include any that voted for the stimulus and those who decide to vote for the health care takeover.
The public is upset and politicians will have a hard time this go round. They usually rely on the short memories of the electorate who only remember the last thing that was done for them but this time it appears as if a lot of people have very good memories. The Tea Parties are still going strong and a lot of people are angry at government. ObaMao’s base is upset with him because he did not go all Commie fast enough and has not done enough damage to the country in their eyes.
The moderates, Independents, and Republicans are upset with out of control spending, a stimulus that has not worked, the abandonment of our troops in Afghanistan and the pettiness of the Rookie in Chief. Barring a major event that turns this country around in a good direction, next November will be a bloodbath at the polls.
Robert Gibbs might have thought he was issuing a veiled threat to Lieberman and others who oppose this health care takeover but he really accurately predicted the fate of many in government who have abandoned the Constitution and have spent like there is no tomorrow.
If Gibbs still has his job the day after the election, it would be funny to play his words back for him and tell him how he was almost correct. The thing he will get wrong?
The politicians will be held accountable by their constituents who do NOT want this health care takeover to go through.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: election, Gibbs, health care, lieberman, Obama, public option, seniors