Tue, Dec 15th - 3:29PM
Pulling out of the CBO assessment ==>> YIKES!!!
This tidbit is buried in the CBO estimate just out on the Latest Senate Plan. Hot off the presses, folks!
A family of four—two parents and two children—earning $88,200 would be at 400 percent of the poverty level this year, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A family of four earning $88,201, therefore, would not be eligible for a federal subsidy to buy insurance under the Senate health-care bill. If the mother and father in such a family could not get employer-based health insurance—because their employers decided not to buy their workers insurance—the family would be required by law to purchase a policy with its own money that would cost an estimated $15,200 per year, according to the CBO.
The $15,200 per year number is directly out ot the CBO report. The 400 percent threshold to have to do this completely on your own (or go to jail!) is from the current numbers from Obama's Department of Health and Human Services cronies.
10% seems to be some sort of magic number. The latest drivel coming from the Lunatic Fringe (I won't even bother calling them the Loonie Left, their position is so obvious, you don't need to call them on the Left -- They've fallen off the edge over there...) is about how many Americans already pay more than 10% of their earnings for health care costs. Oh, there are Millions of those poor American Families! We don't want them to pay 10%. No, we want them to pay fully 17% of their hard earned livings for it, just to pay for their new insurance under the new plan. Deductibles? Oh, that is more. Co-payments? More again. Prescriptions? You guessed it, shell out more sheckles my friend. Welcome to Health Care Cost Controls ala Harry Reid's Democratically Controled United States Senate!!! Wh00t!!! That'll teach them not to mess with us! Lets double (or more) their costs overnight! And you don't have to make six figures to qualify!!!
And don't forget, if you only have slightly over 7.5% of your AGI for Health Care Costs Currently, the deductions you were expecting from the IRS just went bye bye in this one, too. The new Magic number? 10%! And that *won't* include those health insurance premiums you are paying to get the insurance on your own, either! If there were not enough Health Care cost induced bankruptcies to keep Lawyers busy before, the Senate is right on track to make sure there are plenty more!
Just how bad can these jokers make it, I wonder? No longer are they aiming for those making over $250,000 per year or even $100,000 per year. Nope. $88,200 is the *new* $250,000 in the Lunatic Fringe's definition of who is "way too rich" in America! Those making $70,000 per year will get some subisidies and maybe only pay around 15% of their pay overall. They have beecome the *new* $100,000 "still too rich" in the Lunatic Fringe's definition book.
There is no middle class in their book. There is no reason to try and work to get ahead! Just listen to their empty message they call "Hope" and understand just how much of a joke that really is! They want utter and complete hopelessness for all! That makes you easier to manipulate!
The warnings are there. You have to try to be blind to not see it. But, I will say what I see. And this world is not getting any better. I am not speaking of end times, but it could still be so. There is talk of "Peace over all the World" even if it is not the truth. One has to wonder a bit...
In Truth,
Mel
Comment (1)
|
Mon, Dec 7th - 4:08PM
The Senate Has Little I can Agree with...
In its bill, H. R. 3590, (which is actually a "shell" provided by gutting a previous bill from the House to circumvent Constitutional Prohibitions against the Senate introducing such bills -- sooooooo much for check and balances, but we all know the Constitution is just a piece of paper, right?) there are little tidbits here and there I can agree with.
I am trusting the extracted information that I got here in this article, but I also went and checked one of the easier ones to find and verified that it at least was acurate. I will share the two things I care to agree with:
1) It adds a plastic surgery excise tax for 'purely cosmetic procedures' of 5%. Now I know Hollywood Stars are probabaly going to find a way around this because they are friends with the Liberals that are Controlling this and as their friends they expect special treatment, but at least it is a step in the right direction. Yeah, maybe a nose job could be considered a bona fide procedure needed in their career field, but I'd like to think they would still get hit with the excise tax since I am sure, as a whole, they are more able to bear the burden of such a tax versus someone like you or me. But you know it would never play out that way. Their is no justice for Hollywood Excess.
2) It takes out a surcharge on the rich making over $1 Million per year and replaces it with an increase in the Medicare Tax for earners making over $250k per year. (both are joint earnings numbers that will be used by most tax filers) Why would I like this? Simple: It makes more people aware of the increased costs. The more people get hammered directly by this bill, the better, In My Humble Opinion. Smack 10 Million Medicare Advantage users. Smack a few Million more not so quite rich as you might think. Make it hurt in the back pocket when the economy is soooo bad. Then say a simple prayer asking that they live long enough to vote, because you know they will correctly put the blame right where it belongs!
Other than those two things, I can't find much to like.
It doesn't restrict illegals from getting insurance paid with tax dollars. It says *conceptually* that it *should* not. It leaves no enforcement in place to insure that we are not becoming a "bring all health care problems to America" place of renown. I am pretty sure they could get a few more people across the borders with such an incentive! That is the plan all along, anyways! They have to get these people a chance to vote to overpower everyone else they are messing over, including the Unions, which at least makes me a little happy.
It does not currently prevent abortions from being funded directly by Federal Tax Dollars. My Battle Cry? "Pro Choice for all, or NO CHOICE at ALL!!!" IF they are allowed to choose (legally, not morally) to have an abortion, I demand the right to choose (legally and morally) NOT to pay for it in any way. If someone wants to make a tax deductible contribution to Planned Parenthood or one of the other institutions of such demeanor, they certainly should "walk the walk" (something they are currently not willing to do, I might add) and let me stand on my beliefs!
One of the things I find most henious is the fact that they will dissallow an additional 2.5% AGI Medical Deduction from Taxable Income. I thought one of the prime tenets driving this whole 'Universal Healthcare' schmeel was to help people being whalloped by the high costs of health care and being pushed to the point of bankruptcy. Hello! Taking away tax deductions for this group of people is so contrary to that ideal that I wonder how they can sleep a night! There are going to be more bankruptcies *caused* by this! I know their spin doctors will try to make this turn into a reason to allow even more invasive Federal Control. In other words "we will force up your costs and deny it in order to validate the need for more of our style of control -- it will give us better statistics to point to and blame on the private insurance industry." Just like Global Warming: If the data is not dire enough, lie and make it worse!
As for the Cadillac tax, I am not sure that we all won't be paying a bit more for this. I don't for one minute think the costs won't be averaged out over all of our premiums. And although the supposed target will be the big union plans etc, unless they are the *only* ones covered by their Private Insurance of choice, we will *all* foot this bill to reduce taxes by paying for it more directly. Again, these rising costs are designed to give them better statistics. Things will look worse, exactly because the Government *has* become more directly involved. That truth will not be anywhere in their spin!
And the FSA and HSA changes are only designed to penalize anyone who would take enough responsiblity to actually try and *plan* for any health care contingencies. They want to reward only sheep like behaviour. They want to have you think you should have *no* control at all, and that all planning on your part should fail. The Democrats have been building their 'velvet traps' for years and are experts at it! If we ever collectively figure it out, will it be too late?
In Truth,
Mel
Comment (0)
|
Thu, Dec 3rd - 5:56PM
For Real: An Inconvenient Truth
Noble Peace Prize from his friends in Oslo.
Oscar from his Friends in Hollywood.
And a decreasing carbon footprint since this subject was so serious to win these awards, right?
Wrong!
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091202071909.aspx
It was the sarcasm in the above article about Al Gore's lifestyle that got me looking at this:
I think he should be ashamed. But I see no evidence of any shame on his part. If this is your hero, here he is, uncut and uncensored:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
And this:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/al_gore_energy.htm
And this:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1
Let me see... USA Today, About.com and ABC News are not exactly right wing rags are they? For them to even give this the time of day means I am not alone in thinking that honoring this man for this idea as very sick. But I don't expect much will come of it other than another invitation from Michael Moore for a collaborative movie of some sort.
Oh Well,
Mel
Would you like to compare Gore to Bush in terms of Eco Friendly "walking the walk?"
Inconvenient, isn't it?
Comment (0)
|
Thu, Dec 3rd - 5:17PM
Can you see the Problem here?
I know. I read too much.
"Abortion Is a ‘God-Given Right,’ Liberal Leader Declares" is the article that initially sparked this.
In it, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, is quoted as saying:
“But sadly, the Conference of Catholic Bishops had other ideas. They chose to hold comprehensive health care reform hostage to the abortion issue. In doing so, they not only used a dubious rationale that puts even their own federal funding at risk. They failed their fundamental obligation to help the poor and heal the sick.”
She is also cited as suggesting that the Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), (whose lobbying efforts were essential in passing the Stupak amendment) may jeopardize its tax-exempt status because of the organization’s lobbying effort.
Um, this was said at a Lobbying Rally, organized by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and other major Pro-Abortion (not just Pro-Choice) groups, where there were obviously Members (other than just the previously mentioned speaker) of Congress in attendance. It was not just a feel-good party they were having. There was a political agenda being promulgated. They were there to attempt to influence Congress and the public at large.
Can you see the problem?
Let me give you a hint. This is directly quoted from the web site that the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice maintains:
"The Religious Coalition is a non-profit, non-partisan education and advocacy organization of religious and religiously affiliated groups working together to preserve the individual’s right to reproductive choice, free from government interference or coercion, and religious freedom for all Americans."
Hm. First of all, although they claim to be non-partisan, they have a history of coming out in support of political candidates, an action that could be enough to get a church to loose its not for profit status. And if they are non-profit, why is what the USCCB is doing so bad when they are doing exactly the same thing?
Rev. Carlton Veazey, president and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice went on to rant, “We are also here to call out the U.S. Conference of [Catholic] Bishops, because no one religion, no theological perspective should get the kind of weight that they can [to] put pressure on the Congress."
He accused the USCCB of bad acts, saying that their effect was to: "Hold the whole Congress up and say, ‘If we don’t get our way, we will work against health reform.’ We in the religious community resent that. We believe that no religion should carry that kind of weight in legislation.”
Well, Mr Veazey, neither should you. You advocate militant action, insist that your members should shake up Congress, and have the audacity to think the USCCB is wrong? Let me give you a clue, if you are right about the Catholic Bishops, then you are also saying (by your very actions) that it takes two wrongs to make a right, and that the ends justify the means.
On neither of those grounds could I agree less.
In Truth,
Mel
Comment (2)
|
Tue, Dec 1st - 6:13PM
Oh, we all have credibility problems -- even Scientists!!!
(We are accused of this too)
Just remember, the ends do not justify the means. Behave like this, and it could/will be exposed. What good credit would that give Christ, I might ask?
But as another aside, despite what you might think of the subject matter, who do you think is really in charge? Well, act like it, then!
In Truth,
Mel
Comment (5)
|
Back to Blog Main Page
|
|
| About Me |
|
| Dec. 2009 |
|
| |
|
1
|
2 |
3
|
4 |
5 |
|
6 |
7
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
13 |
14 |
15
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
prev
|
|
next
|
|
|
Archives
|
| |
Name: Mel Miller
