Should congress and congressional aide get a 75% assist in buying their healthcare from the taxpayers???

Everyone's heard of this, Congress, government employees get a nifty bump of a taxpayer assist in paying for their healthcare via the exchange.

Is this fair as we the people who are hammered with this law pay the price while congress escapes?

What gives us a right to anything?

I have been inspired to ask this question as a result of comments posted recently by William and further back by posts of Rollingdude.  I've long felt that honest discussions about this are never held. Constitutionalists/Libertarians/Tea Party Types, remind us at length about what are and aren't rights based on the constitution and their belief that only THEY really know what the founding fathers intended. While I typically don't dispute what are commonly accepted as rights under the constitution, I do question who actually grants and defends those rights and subsequently, who gets to decide when more rights (or less) are required.

Regardless of how enlightened the constitution is, it's meaningless without a society that is willing to live by it and defend it with blood. Without police, without military, the constitution is a high falutin demand that those with power show some respect and decency to those without money, connections, weapons or cunning. If we weren't willing to pay taxes and generally respect the rights of others, the constitution would be no better then toilette paper. While the founding fathers may have had the brains to create such an enlightened concept of government, it is the little people who actually defend it and make it reality. They are the ones who die for it.

In one of William's rants about GMO's, he made a comment that we absolutely CANNOT create a right to know what is in our food by simply reading the label. Instead, we should have to scour the internet to find out what is in our food and do our own homework. I find this truly fascinating. Implied, in that is a right for food companies like Monsanto to "hide" something that is controversial to consumers, while said consumers, who participate in the market and essentially ARE the market, are not allowed to tell producers "these are the rules you will play by if you want to participate in our market" By creating the constitution, the founding fathers told the world, "These are the principles of our democracy and if you come here, these are the rules you will abide by." Strangely, the ones who die for the latter statement are not allowed to make the former statement to producers.

Seemingly, to some in this country, nothing in humanity is really a valid right if the founding fathers of the United States did not identify it as such 200 odd years ago. I see it differently of course. While the founding fathers smashed the absolute control of monarchy, they sort of spread the power out to the next layer, namely those with money. In both cases, it was still the little people who died for and defended the interests of those at the top. At various times, our society has looked at reality and said, "This is unacceptable." We weren't quite that high minded when it came to slavery, but we were when it came to giving women the right to vote and with civil rights in the 60's. Of course, constitutionalists are appalled by this development, see: voter registration laws. 

These days, the common belief seems to be that by attempting to protect the voice of the minority in the 1700's, the founding fathers fully intended that in 2013 the minority should be allowed to dictate to everyone else the way things should be and that as always, the little people should keep living in poop to defend that minority's right to tell the rest of us what to do. Someday soon, I'd like to think people will wise up a bit.

French lift ban on GMO corn.

Today's "Health Industry"

Well Max, first off, how've you been, good health I trust...  Health, is health a function of environments, both internal and external? Yes.  Is health a function genetics, relative to inherited genetic codes, yes.  Is the pool of genetically weak individuals in any given country greater than or less than the ratio of health providers that can create the cures for the attacking cellular invaders that, at one time the scientific communities were optimistic that illness would just be a thing of "the past"... AIDS proved that not to be the case.  Slowly the health industry has evolved from eradication of disease to management of disease(s).

Health also seems to have become a massive industry, perhaps surpassing.. Education, construction, manufacturing, food production, heck name any "job" I'd bet health has surpassed every category of employment, a bet you'll correct me on I'm sure.  As the population has grown the desire for longevity has grown also, the 300 million here, the billion there, etc, etc.  we (they) all want to live longer.  Having said all this, is it not the industry you are in the best industry to be a part of?  The supply of work will never end, we all wind up in your industries lap sooner or later.  Several other industries are tied forever to your industry, are they not, if we all never died, you'd be unemployed, but we all do die. Your industry is designed to do nothing but extend, at a great cost, the end of life.  It is logical to me that your industry, Death, is the big ticket here on this planet.  Is it not?

Is it the web of industries that have been spawned by death that are the villains, the manufacturers of the dialysis machines, the surgical implants, organ transplants, the list is endless, why we all wind up in "your" hands, do we not?  So your a monopoly winner!  You and your profession are the big winners here.  But what are the ethics behind this profession, surely some are only in it for the money, hell the years of med school, or the expense to learn anything in your chosen "job" normally carries with it a decent living, I would expect those working around you to be earning the highest 1 or 2 percent in the nation.

Rightfully so, yet are they not also the targets of high insurance costs, the targets of the high costs of just about everything, is this not the root cost of the high cost of the end of life?

Insurance, now we're getting somewhere, those assholes that steal from us in order to make sure we live a couple of years longer, even if you smoke, you're overweight or whatever the vice is.  Vices, these are the real killers are they not, the human behaviors we addict ourselves too.  Driving too fast, eating too much, smoking, the list is long on vices and short on virtues, but its a sure bet that at some point we all wind up getting a last goodbye from your profession.

So... I ramble on and on, yet what am,or where am I going, is it the job of our elected officials to force each and every on of us to take care of ourselves, or do we have the right to subject the entire population to a tax to force us to live right, which we still won't do so it's a given that if the government is going to make us all either pay a tax or or join an exchange or hide in the woods to avoid a tax that big brother, the GOVERNMENT will find you and it will make you pay.  Regardless if you eat the good stuff, follow all the guidelines, exercise, etc. etc.  is it still up to the government to make sure we do what we are supposed to do.  Someday will we face a law for each and every thing we consume that is "bad" for us, too much soda, pay a fine, too much this tho much that?  Whom will be our judge, when will the judging begin, age 10, 15, 21 , 27, etc., etc.

It seems Obamacare was designed to hold all of our collective hands from kindergarten forward to march like little robots, god forbid you eat the wrong foods, do this or do that that "they" don't approve of.. Because that is what Obamacare is for, an entire life of hand holding until the inevitable end.... That is going to come anyway.

I for one know in my heart this is the wrong path, you are in the industry that makes sure that whomever you "treat" is only allowed to ingest what someone else commands.  God forbid a patient of yours did something NOT prescribed!  There would be he'll to pay!


Well, the control freaks have gotten their collective way.  The real cost of healthcare is so extreme that only the government can decide who lives and who dies, thanks!

Is variety the spice of life?

Well, I realize it's summer and people might be doing better things ( I hope so anyway), but I feel like I've noticed a bit of a pattern that goes back to the MW days, namely that more conservative types seem to like to stick to newsgroups where everyone more or less says the same thing. Before Carol started a spin off of US POL (or whatever it was called) I felt like the tenor of that original group had reached a level of serious anger. Of course, one man's perception of hate is always another man's perception of just calling a spade a spade (see what I did there), but regardless of whether you call it hate or not, I think it's fair to say that that group became a bastion of homogeneity. Every once in awhile I would peak back in there and saw that the posts really never changed, at least, the content never changed.

I've said before the reason I come here and not some left leaning site is precisely because so many of you disagree with me. Deep down, I see much less division than folks claim, but when it comes to labels of conservative, liberal, etc, that seems to be the point where people really dig in and claim some major difference. Perhaps division is comforting/empowering? From religion to politics, I've always been wary to be in groups where people think the same way. The more people think they all agree, the less willing they become to challenge each other on stories/theories/assumptions that might be completely false. Part of why I keep coming to a site like this one is because it forces me (somewhat) to be informed and honest about what I express. The good/bad thing about the net is that no matter what your belief is, you can find SOMETHING that supports it. Whether those sources of support are credible sources is another story. Be that as it may, being challenged to support my opinions with something rational keeps me looking things up and shockingly, I discovered that I will not die if I find that a particular belief is based on something false.

I post here a lot because my workweek is Sat, Sun and Mon and I have considerable time during the week to post. For the moment though, it seems like things are getting quiet. Are people just bored or does everyone feel like they have expressed themselves and there's not much left to say?

Facts, Lies and Obamacare

A Limit on Consumer Costs Is Delayed in Health Care Law...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=1&

WASHINGTON — In another setback for President Obama’s health care initiative, the administration has delayed until 2015 a significant consumer protection in the law that limits how much people may have to spend on their own health care.

The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But under a little-noticed ruling, federal officials have granted a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014.

The grace period has been outlined on the Labor Department’s Web site since February, but was obscured in a maze of legal and bureaucratic language that went largely unnoticed. When asked in recent days about the language — which appeared as an answer to one of 137 “frequently asked questions about Affordable Care Act implementation” — department officials confirmed the policy.

The discovery is likely to fuel continuing Republican efforts this fall to discredit the president’s health care law.

Under the policy, many group health plans will be able to maintain separate out-of-pocket limits for benefits in 2014. As a result, a consumer may be required to pay $6,350 for doctors’ services and hospital care, and an additional $6,350 for prescription drugs under a plan administered by a pharmacy benefit manager.

Some consumers may have to pay even more, as some group health plans will not be required to impose any limit on a patient’s out-of-pocket costs for drugs next year. If a drug plan does not currently have a limit on out-of-pocket costs, it will not have to impose one for 2014, federal officials said Monday.

The health law, signed more than three years ago by Mr. Obama, clearly established a single overall limit on out-of-pocket costs for each individual or family. But federal officials said that many insurers and employers needed more time to comply because they used separate companies to help administer major medical coverage and drug benefits, with separate limits on out-of-pocket costs.

Just so you don't forget our roots...

http://atabloidapproachtothemsm.blogspot.com/2012_07_01_archive.html

Those of us who were NOT clones, did NOT spew hatred and who THOUGHT reasonable thoughts-------

Carol 3 days ago

 Report Abuse

have moved on and now are in private contact--------its working and its very interesting---------see ya around sometime, just not ALL the time.

Politics is just too varied, and interesting, when the bullies are left to themselves. Constructive dialog can take place when personal attacks and insults, which lead to self-destruction, are taken out of the equation.

Entropy, and lack of intellect, have trashed this site.

Carol 3 days ago

+3 Votes 

Happy now?

Reply Link Track Replies Report Abuse

Rojayalso 3 days ago

+9 Votes 

Thats a 10-4 Carol. This is now the site of a Thousand Clones.

I've not quit and won't but cant get here as much,other priorities!

Reply Link Track Replies Report Abuse

LiveStrongest 3 days ago

+13 Votes 

I'm glad you have your little community now where you can pat each other on the back and say how brilliant you are and not be confronted with facts that contradict your position.

Reply Link Track Replies Report Abuse

rick0427 3 days ago

+4 Votes 

LS it's not what you are trying to say it is the hate filled comments and virulent dialogue that many here want to use. Instead of trashing the commentor trash the comment. Too many here won't do that. Some days it's like a pre school playground around here

Ornithopters 3 days ago

+12 Votes 

Well that is what this site was when it started. Dry and Carol would continually flatter each other over their liberal and more than liberal thoughts.

If she wants to live in an echo chamber, that is her choice, I can't force her to see both sides.

And talk about class. If you have something better going, do your something better. Don't go and tell the rest of us, I have something better, Nyah Nyah Nyah.
Brother.

Major Danish Daily Newspaper Warns: ‘Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age…Much Colder Winters…Dramatic Consequences’!

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/09/major-danish-daily-newspaper-warns-globe-may-be-on-path-to-little-ice-agemuch-colder-wintersdramatic-consequences/

Paper features Danish solar physicist Henrik Svensmark on the subject of the UN IPCC: '…many of the climate models used by IPCC and others overestimate the influence of CO2 and underestimate the influence of the sun. … The IPCC is very one-sided, so I don’t think there will be anything reasonable in the next report.'

Another major European media outlet is asking: Where’s the global warming?

Image right: The August 7 edition of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, featured a major 2-page article on the globe’s 15-years of missing warming and the potential solar causes and implications.

Moreover, they are featuring prominent skeptic scientists who are warning of a potential little ice age and dismissing CO2 as a major climate driver. And all of this just before the release of the IPCC’s 5AR, no less!

Hat-tip: NTZ reader Arne Garbøl

The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, the famous daily that published the “Muhammad caricatures“, features a full 2-page article bearing the headline: ”The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age” followed by the sub-headline: “Defying all predictions, the globe may be on the road towards a new little ice age with much colder winters.”

So now even the once very green Danish media is now spreading the seeds of doubt. So quickly can “settled science” become controversial and hotly disputed. The climate debate is far from over. And when it does end, it looks increasingly as if it’ll end in favor of the skeptics.

The JP writes that “many will be startled” by the news that a little ice age is a real possibility. Indeed, western citizens have been conditioned to think that nothing except warming is possible. Few have prepared for any other possibility.

In its latest 2-page report, the JP now appears to tell its readers that our views on climate science have to be much more open minded and unshackled from the chains of dogmatism.

JP starts by reminding readers that it was just over 100 years ago that the world had clawed itself out of the little ice age, which extended from 1400 – 1900, a time when the Thames river often froze over. All paths in determining the cause of the little ice age all seem to converge to a single factor: solar activity.

The Jyllands-Posten quotes David Hathaway:

‘We now have the lowest solar activity in 100 years,’ David Hathaway from American space research institute NASA newly concluded in connection to the release of new figures for the sun’s activity. He said the activity for the ongoing cycle is half of the previous cycle, and he predicted an even lower activity for the next cycle, which will hit us in few years.”

Suddenly even the greenest of media outlets among us are contemplating what the consequences of a quiet sun may be. The JP then quotes Irish solar specialist Ian Elliott, who says these consequences could be dramatic:

It indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age. It seems likely we are on the path to a period with very low solar activity, which could mean that we may have some very cold winters.”

Elliott then cites the ice-cold winters of 2009 and 2010 as early signs.

JP then cites at length Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who needs no introduction:

Since the 1940s and up to 10 years ago we have had the highest solar activity in 1000 years. The last time we had solar activity that high was when we had the Medieval Warm Period from year 1000 to around 1300. … Historically there has been a close connection between solar activity and temperature for the last 1000 years. Therefore the sun’s activity will also have influence the coming many years. … The unusual thing right now is that sun’s activity is decreasing while there’s a great increase in atmospheric CO2. For that reason the question is how much the earth will cool in a time of decreasing solar activity. … The development is beautifully consistent with a cooling effect of the solar activity in the same period. This could mean that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years or maybe begin to decrease.”

JP also quotes Svensmark on the subject of the IPCC: “…many of the climate models used by IPCC and others overestimate the influence of CO2 and underestimate the influence of the sun. … The IPCC is very one-sided, so I don’t think there will be anything reasonable in the next report.”

Another forgotten reprobate

Global warming is a hot topic.. But Planned Parenthood is catching fire too!!

Watching the news out there folks?  Couldn't help but see the Planned Parenthood scandal, or was it just on Fox News?  For all you libs on this tiny blog it was a bad day at black (not a racial slur a Spencer Tracy movie) rock!

Yes the attack dogs at Fox News are after PPhood!  Shameful!!

However the half billion waste number is a bit impressive, even for a legit outfit that moral less folks can't "live" without!

He'll! The story isn't even on Drudge as I type away on my iPad!  What does that tell you about this hot potatoe!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/08/gao-opens-investigation-into-planned-parenthood-use-taxpayer-money/

Since you won't find the story anywhere else those evil folks at Fox News will carry the ball across the goal line, or shoud I say the third trimester...


Over the next few days perhaps some of the MSM will try to cover the story, but for now only Fox has the guts to put it out to the public.

Have a nice night, or should I say have a nice "right".....