What The Health Care Bill Actually Says

.

By Mr. John David Lewis, who represents the best of Americans being citizens – and, alas, citizen journalists.

[I've read my share of summaries - this one's the best I've found. I've left his references so you can verify his 'analysis' as I did, but once assured he give the straight scoop {or it wouldn't be here} you can switch to Red Reading to skip the legalese and get the English meaning under the "EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:" - they're short, concise and tell it like it is.

Mega Kudo's & thanks to Prof. Lewis]

What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissio0ner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.

This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.

We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.

(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)



WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?

This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:

‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .

and:

‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and:

‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .

‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. This section amends the Social Security Act

2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”

3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.





WILL THE PLAN PUNISH AMERICANS WHO TRY TO OPT OUT?

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.





WHAT CONSTITUTES "ACCEPTABLE" COVERAGE?

Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

(a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . .

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care . . .

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .

(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.

2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal. [I.e, "Cadillac" plans for everyone, no options, and destroys the best alternative {HSAs}. Can't have competition against the government}.]






WILL THE PLAN DESTROY PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE?

Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE

(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)

The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.

2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”

3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.

4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.

5. The government will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.





DOES THE PLAN TAX SUCCESSFUL AMERICANS MORE THAN OTHERS?

Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—

‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.

3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.

4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.





DOES THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO SET FEES FOR SERVICES?

What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.
Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?

What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—

‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,

‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),

‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,

‘‘(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and

‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code

2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.

3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.

4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to "enforce" the plan.






DOES THE PLAN AUTOMATICALLY ENROLL AMERICANS IN THE GOVERNMENT PLAN?

What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:

(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

And, page 145, section 312:

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Do nothing and you are in.

2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.

[I.e, "yes".]





DOES THE PLAN EXEMPT FEDERAL OFFICIALS FROM COURT REVIEW?

What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.

And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.

‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—

‘‘(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or

‘‘(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”

2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.



[If this isn't government run health care, what the hell is?

It doesn't matter what politicians say, only what's written which will become law. This thing is exactly as dire as all the 'crazy right-wing extremists' say it is.

We've been warned.]


SOURCE

image toon - 1st fnn hcare = Oby says doesn't want to hear from towns folk

'Town Halls' a Chance for the President, Not the Public, to Vent

A look at President Obama's health care "town hall" Tuesday in Portsmouth, N.H., shows the president out-spoke his audience by a margin of nearly 9-to-1 -- hardly the kind of even-handed exchange of ideas that marked the town meetings of colonial America...

READ MORE

Poll: Obama Approval Rating Drops to 47 Percent

President Obama's approval rating has dropped to 47 percent, a new low, according to the Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll.

The survey released Thursday showed 52 percent of those polled disapprove of Obama's performance, while 47 percent at least somewhat approve.

READ MORE

There’s Something Happening Here

It began with the tea parties. People of all ages joined in huge protests against the massive spending approved in Washington. They gathered by the thousands in cities and towns from coast to coast to speak out against the huge stimulus plan. Yet, for months not much was covered by the mainstream media and President Barack Obama told the press that he didn’t know anything about the tea parties.

Forty years ago Buffalo Springfield sang about the protests against the Viet Nam war and the mainstream media covered the protests on front pages, covers of magazines and on the nightly news. In fact, the late CBS anchor Walter Cronkite devoted an entire newscast to the protests and gave the protestors their full voice in demands to end that war. It wasn’t long after that President Lyndon Johnson announced he would not seek another term of office.

But this time everything is turned around.

The protestors aren’t being heard on Capitol Hill. In fact, the US House ignored the people’s demands to put a hold on spending and, instead, proceeded to pass the so-called “Cap and Trade” bill, which, if approved by the Senate would raise rates you pay on everything from the gas you put in your car to the lights you use in your home, to the power you use to heat or cool your home, to the energy you use to cook your meals.

And then they turned to nationalized health care... [snip]

In the war years, President Richard Nixon called the protestors “bums”. This time, President Barack Obama has told them to shut up. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called the protestors “un-American”. And, when the media finally began covering the protests, organized union opposition curiously arrived to shout the protestors down and, in some cases, attack them. You can tell who these thugs are. They carry professionally printed signs with union bugs. The protestors carry home made cardboard signs...[snip]

Average Americans have watched as companies closed, unemployment grew, and once-busy stores turned into boarded-up empty spaces. They’ve seen their retirement accounts evaporate. And, in the midst of this, as President Obama told the nation that they would have to make some sacrifices, they’ve watched this President plan to take his family to a multi million dollar estate on Cape Cod for the summer.

They’ve watched Congressional members travel to far away places to snorkel under the ruse that they’re investigating climate change. They’ve watched the House attempt to tuck into a defense budget 500 million dollars for eight luxury jets for their own use.

And they’ve noticed that, while they’re being told to accept a public option health plan, the President, members of Congress and all federal employees will continue to enjoy top of the line private insurance coverage - all paid for by them, the American taxpayers..[snip]

The new leadership in Washington appears to have become purposely deaf to Middle America’s voice. Playing games with the census won’t be enough to stop the votes to oust them if they don’t begin to listen to the people. Their numbers are growing, through word on the street among everyday people and over their kitchen tables.

Friends are telling friends and those friends are showing up, no matter that Washington leaders are calling them a mob. They’re growing in numbers and showing up with their children in tow, pushing baby buggies, or in their walkers and carrying oxygen.

Their message is clear. They want Washington to stop the spending spree, read bills before they pass them, and give them some tax relief.

It’s time for Washington to begin to listen.

[And have the integrity to argue their positions honestly instead of this perpetual disinformation/misdirection campaign meant to deliberately deceive us.]

READ MORE

image toon - 1st fnn hcare = Oby re single payer support then and now

Inconvenient Constituents

Georgia Democrat Rep. David Scott was asked some questions about healthcare reform by Dr. Brian Hill at a recent town hall meeting.

The Congressman, perhaps assuming he was dealing with an outsider went into a tirade. According to the Washington Times, Rep. Scott got quite agitated...

[Scott would be the 'public servant'.]

READ MORE

Republicans refuse to sign off on civility pledge

In advance of President Barack Obama’s Friday visit to Gallatin Field, Gallatin County Democrats were rebuffed by the local Republican Party after asking them to sign a resolution agreeing to keep the town hall meeting civil and respectful.

“I just think that people are being asked to be seen and not heard,”

said Billie Orr, chairwoman of the Gallatin County Republican Committee.The Gallatin Republican executive board unanimously voted against the resolution.

[Bravo. Yet another sign that the Democrats {particularly, if not exclusively} have completely lost track of who works for who: they're not doing us favors by listening - it's a condition of employment. Citizens being angry isn't nearly the problem the reason for being so is - that's where the media's focus should be... ]

READ MORE

CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC All Assign Communist LaRouche's Obama-Hitler Poster to Conservatives. Oops.

The media have repeatedly stated how "angry," "hostile" and "ugly" town hall meetings across America are becoming. They are of course largely ascribing the nastiness to conservatives voicing their opposition to (among other things) President Barack Obama and Congress' proposed government takeover of the health care system.

The press has been particularly offended by the "extreme" use of references to Adolf Hitler specifically and Nazis generally. One image they have repeatedly used as an example of this alleged right-wing extremism is a poster of President Obama - on whose face a Hitler mustache has been Photo Shopped - bearing the caption "I've Changed."

We have compiled a video montage [below] of just some of the recent news programs that have ascribed this Obama-with-Mustache poster to conservative town hall attendees.

But there's a problem with this media narrative.

For written at the poster's bottom is the web address "LaRouchePAC.com," the political action committee website for Communist and perpetual Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche.

No right-winger he. And neither he nor his acolytes are likely ones to be "stoked by the provocative megaphone of Rush Limbaugh." In fact (from Wikipedia):

In 1979, LaRouche formed a Political Action Committee called the National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC). LaRouche has run for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States seven times, beginning in 1980.

The Obama-with-Mustache sign is in fact offered up on LaRouche's website as a "Mass Distribution Poster." It is an enormous full color .pdf suitable for all your town hall Communist protest needs.

In fact, the Obama-Hitler theme (see right) is a recurring one for LaRouche. The top listing under the "Our Campaigns" header on his home page is "Stop Obama's Nazi Health Plan." Clicking on it leads you to a series of anti-ObamaCare videos, including one entitled "Hitler's T4 Program - Obama's Health Care Inspiration."


It could very well be that many (most? all?) of the swastikas and Hitler images on display at these rallies are being toted by supporters of the very Leftist LaRouche, and not the conservatives to whom the media so readily and repeatedly ascribe them.

If only the media had invested the five seconds I did to discover this.

How can we expect lawmakers to read 1,000+ page bills when we can't get [professional] reporters to read a mostly monosyllabic placard?

While LaRouche's website address is blurry here, it was there as clear as a bell for all the Jurassic Press to see at the rallies on which they were allegedly reporting. Yet they all somehow managed to overlook it, and inaccurately ascribe a Communist's artistic handiwork to conservatives.

Sadly, as always, the MSM never the let the facts get in the way of a their preferred narrative.

READ MORE

CNN Video from 2006: Bush With Hitler Mustache? No Outrage; Called A 'Look-Alike'

The media are currently apoplectic about the Obama-as-Hitler references at town hall meetings across the country. But this collective media outrage at references to the President as Der Fuhrer is a new development.

Back in the George W. Bush days, the Jurrasic Press was far less reviled by the often made Bush-as-Hitler comparisons, and indeed some saw similarites.

As you can see in this CNN clip from January 13, 2006 by Ms. Roesgen reporting from New Orleans on Hurricane Katrina. During which she says, in reference to a man in a giant Bush head with a Hitler mustache (and devil horns):

"City officials say more money is needed to fix the levees, and they hoped the President would stop by after his meeting with business leaders. But while a look-alike showed up with a wad of cash, Mr. Bush did not."

"Look-alike?" Where's the outrage? Where's the indignation?

Like LaRouche today, these were Leftists making the comparison. And the media didn't seem to mind.

READ MORE

When the Right Protests, It Must Be Wrong

For eight years in America, protest was in and all the cool kids did it. We had flamboyantly dressed Code Pinkers demonstrating at conventions and in sessions of Congress, calling Marine recruiters “traitors” and protesting wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Then there were the crazies from Acorn stalking Wall Street executives at their homes. And anti-war lefty Cindy Sheehan got so much news coverage from the major networks and top newspapers that they practically had to create a bureau to handle her antics.

Through it all, the left whined that President George Bush was a fascist – with “BusHitler” a common term among the foam-at-mouth Birkenstock set. (Google Bush AND Hitler and you’ll get more than 1 million hits including a bunch of Photoshopped images of Bush as Hitler.

We were supposed to bear with it. Dissent was patriotic we were told. Those hate-spewing anti-war activists really loved our soldiers – especially when they were mocking the war right outside a veteran’s hospital. And the endless stream of Nazi comparisons were just free speech, after all.

That all happened before January 20, when the left, along with their supporters in the news media, decided protest and dissent were suddenly unpatriotic. Welcome to hypocrisy, the millennial edition. Now everything said or done in those eight years is forgotten. America has a blank slate to build hope and change under Obama, so we are told.

Don’t dare criticize him, knock his policies or voice your opinion. Do it and you are called “mobs” or racist by the media and treated as scary forces of hate reminiscent of Waco, the Klan or Nazis...

[I'm always amazed that the left ceaselessly tries to associate the right with 'Nazi', when it stands for Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei, i.e., the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Any honest comparison of its political planks and methods in its 10-year ascension leading up to war {after which its actions became uncompilable to anyone else's, and so moot} irrefutably aligns and overlaps with our current Democrat party's statist beliefs and Alinsky-style power play politics.

Sadly, the fact the conservatism's foundation in individual liberty puts it at the opposite end of the political spectrum evidently hasn't stopped the MSM from re-educating that portion of the populace that gets its 'news' from TV.

If only we could figure out a way to teach history in our schools.]

READ MORE

image toon - msm bias = MSM Obama-teers sing Barak's song

AP Reporter Again Erroneously Cites Cost of Wars As 'Major' Deficit Factor

Does the Associated Press's Martin Crutsinger moonlight as a Code Pink operative? There has to be something that explains what I'll call his Iraqnaphobia.

Last month the AP reporter erroneously cited the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a "major factor" explaining why "the deficit has widened."

In a quick review of the related June 2009 Monthly Treasury Statement, I cited three examples of higher spending in other areas of government that were larger than last year, both in dollar and percentage terms, than the $33 billion, 7% increase in total defense spending.

NB commenter Arminius further pointed out that

"Our military spending amounts to 5 percent of GDP. Iraq and Afghanistan amount to 15 percent of that 5 percent."

Obviously, as Tom notes, larger culprits are responsible for the massive deficit:

"It's simply not possible that the two wars can be a major factor."

No matter --
This month Crutsinger did it again...

READ MORE

Israel tells nationals: Leave Sinai immediately

Israel on Tuesday issued a travel warning for its nationals visting the Sinai peninsula in Egypt, advising them to leave the area immediately. The warning came from the government's counterterrorism unit.

The unit warned Israelis of planned attacks during the upcoming Jewish holiday period, which begins with Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year), at sundown on September 18...

[GWOT]

READ MORE

CBSNews.com's Birthday Gift to Fidel: A Story Devoid of Castro Critics

[They just can't help themselves.]

READ MORE

In defeat for U.S., OAS will let Cuba rejoin without conditions

Cuba's 47-year suspension from the Organization of American States will be lifted, thanks to an agreement reached Wednesday by foreign ministers assembled in Honduras, Ecuador's Foreign Minister Francisco Falcone told reporters.

The United States had been pressuring the OAS for weeks to condition Cuba's readmission to the hemispheric group on democratic principles and commitment to human rights, but Falcone said there will be no such conditions.

[Another organization that stands for nothing.]

READ MORE

CONGRESS IN FANTASYLAND

If Congress suddenly required every car and truck in America (all 250 million of them) to be immediately destroyed and replaced with new cars and trucks that got better gas mileage, would the country be worse off or better off?

Those members of Congress who voted for the "Cash for Clunkers" program would probably say "better off," even though a perfectly good auto and truck stock would be destroyed. Under "Cash for Clunkers":

• Millions of workers would be employed to replace all of the existing cars and trucks; yes, that would be true, but everyone else would be poorer.
• Those who had to buy a new car would have less money to spend on everything else, which would mean fewer jobs in the rest of the economy -- more autoworkers but fewer farmers, teachers and medical researchers -- not a good trade-off.

Members of Congress say that we are saving gasoline by having a more efficient auto fleet -- which ignores the fact that building a new car takes far more resources, including petroleum, than could possibly be saved by the gain of additional miles per gallon.

They are living in a fantasyland, concludes Rahn.

READ MORE

image toon - 1st grn engry mny = Clunkers 4 Cash = AWG trumps donation to poor

Weather records are a state secret

The IPCC's computer models have proved just as wrong in predicting global temperatures as the Met Office has been in forecasting those mild winters and heatwave summers

Back in 1990, Mrs Thatcher, temporarily under the spell of the prophets of runaway global warming, authorised lavish funding for the then-head of the Met Office, Sir John Houghton, to set up its Hadley Centre in Exeter, as a "world-class centre for research into climate change."

Sir John was a fervent believer in the theory that the cause of global warming is man-made CO2, and the HadCrut computer models, run by his CRU ally Professor Phil Jones, were programmed accordingly... [snip]

In recent years, however, the whole theory has come under increasing fire because, as CO2 levels continue to rise, temperatures have failed to follow suit as the IPCC's computer models predicted they should. Part of the reason why the Met Office has made such a mess of its forecasts for Britain is that they are based on the same models which failed to predict the declining trend in world temperatures since 2001.

In recent months, in fact, a curious little drama has been unfolding over attempts by Steve McIntyre, a Canadian statistical expert, to get the Met Office and the CRU to divulge [?] the computer data on which they base their temperature record.

Mr McIntyre was not only the chief demolisher of the "hockey stick", showing how it was based on a seriously skewed computer model, but later exposed the "adjustments" which had skewed the other official record of surface temperatures, run by Dr James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

When Mr McIntyre made Freedom of Information requests to see the data used to construct the HadCrut record, the Met Office said that the information was 'strictly confidential' and that to release it would damage Britain's "international relations" with all the countries that supplied it.

The idea that temperature records might be a state secret seems strange enough, but when the policies of governments across the world are based on that data it becomes odder still that no outsider should be allowed to see it....

[Again; are they acting like scientists? Or politicians? This nonsense is diametrically opposed to valid scientific method, and only makes sense if they've something to hide...]

[the grandest scam in the history of the planet - probably the whole solar system.]

READ MORE

image toon - grn engry = Pelosi teaching congress that there was C&T bill to read before voting

OUR UNCONSTITUTIONAL CENSUS

The U.S. Census Bureau is set to count all persons physically present in the country -- including large numbers who are here illegally. The problem stems from the type of census form used:

• In 1790, the first Census Act provided that the enumeration would count all "inhabitants."
• By 1980, there were two census forms: the shorter form went to every person physically present in the country and the longer form gathered socioeconomic information including citizenship status, but it went only to a sample of U.S. households.
• But in 2010, only the short form will be used.

This makes a real difference, take California for example:

• With 5,622,422 noncitizens in its population of 36,264,467, California would have 57 members in the newly reapportioned U.S. House of Representatives.
• However, with noncitizens not included for purposes of reapportionment, California would have 48 House seats.
• Using a similar projection, Texas would have 38 House members with noncitizens included; with only citizens counted, it would be entitled to 34 members.
• States certain to lose one seat are Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
• States likely (though not certain) to lose a seat are Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio could lose a second seat.

I.e., the census has drifted far from its constitutional roots, and the 2010 enumeration will result in a malapportionment of Congress, with California getting 9 additional seats it doesn't deserve - and at the expense of other states.

READ MORE

image toon - othr fnn - Dept of Commerce taken leave of Census

What if we had comprehensive education reform?

In order to make my point, I propose an illustration. What if it weren't health care that President Obama wanted to reform? What if he had decided it was the American education system that needed overhauling? What would this legislation do?

It's a fascinating exercise to go through the list of highlights in the House bill provided by Family Security Matters and substitute "education" for "health care."

Start with page 16, the famous "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage." Instead of (health insurance) "coverage," imagine the section is titled "Protecting the Choice to Send Your Child to a Private School." Of course your children can attend a private school. As long as a couple of teeny requirements are met:

a.You must already have a child enrolled in the school before the date this law takes effect.

b. The school cannot raise its tuition or change its curriculum.

c. After 5 years, the school's curriculum must meet all the requirements of the Education Benefits Advisory Committee (see page 30, explained next). All three of these requirements are waived for the children of the Executive and Legislative branch and for Sidwell Friends School.

It is also time to establish outcomes-based education compensation. We find this gem on page 335 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. In comprehensive education legislation, America's Affordable Education Choices Act of 2009, outcomes-based compensation would be applied to teachers. Let me offer the following scenario as an illustration. If a teacher has 20 students, and 18 pass the Education Benefits Advisory Committee's standardized test, the teacher shall not be compensated for those 2 failing students; in other words, the teacher will receive a 10% pay cut.

Compare this example to Obama's plan to withhold payment from a physician when his patient's diabetes is not effectively controlled.... [snip]

Finally, on page 425, we find the requirement for "Advance Care Planning Consultations." In education reform legislation, every five years there will be mandated an education planning consultation between the parent(s) and a government-approved educator. This consultation shall include "key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to." The government wants parents to be aware of which education options are most appropriate and cost-effective for the child and the community as a whole.

Look, parents, it's just a little discussion. After all, we know that if the federal government didn't require it, none of you would bother to think about your child's education.

Only a few examples, but they illustrate the absurdity of this bill. Comprehensive education reform is unnecessary, unwanted, and frankly, just stupid. So is comprehensive health care reform.

I have substituted "education" for "health care" in this article. I would suggest our representatives try substituting other crucial functions like "buying groceries" or "travel" for "health care" when they read and study the health care legislation ... if they read and study the legislation.

READ MORE

Now the left plays the race card for Obama

America’s golden age of race relations, which began when Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008 with a seven-point lead over Republican Sen. John McCain, came to a tragic end a couple of weeks ago in July 2009.

That’s when, according to the left, the country that had elected him awoke from its state of denial, or stupor, and realized, to its unrelieved horror, that the man it had chosen was ... black.

How else for them to explain why his poll numbers slipped from astronomical to just about 50 percent, his approval ratings for his pet projects fell even further and his golden-tongued eloquence failed to persuade?

To the saner among us, these developments were due to one of three things, or perhaps all three together: the inevitable end of the honeymoon period; the fact that hopes for him were so overblown that the soufflé was bound to sink sometime; and the large block of people seduced by his temperate manner came to believe there was nothing temperate at all about his agenda, which was far more extreme than they cared to accept.

On the left, however, it seems this is all a facade, and these issues are merely a familiar channel through which racial fears are diverted.

“They’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing ... than to who he is,”

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman told everyone. Krugman says the American right is consumed by “racial anxiety.” And the American Prospect assures us that

“the mainstream right’s ‘Americanism’ ... implicitly rejects people who aren’t white.”

Right. That’s why it raised such unholy hell when President George W. Bush made Colin Powell and Condi Rice secretaries of state in succession, and tried to put Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada on the fast track to Supreme Court nominations. It’s also apparently why Republicans made Michael Steele their new national party chairman... [snip]

In fact, Obama’s deep slide isn’t the work of these terrible GOP bigots. It’s the fault of the wide swath of swing voters who boosted him in the summer, swung to McCain in the first weeks of September and swung back to the rookie when the stock market crashed. And they voted for him on Election Day, many because he’s not white, and they have no problems with that part of the package.

It’s the far-left ideological part, the spending and deficits, to which they object. Polls show that Obama himself is far more popular than his major proposals, and that if he’d only gone with a somewhat more moderate program he’d still be just fine with these folks.

But to avoid this inconvenient truth the left is now trying to convince America that the enlightened and race-neutral country that elected its first black president is really a tragically race-obsessed nation as proven by its disagreement with Obama.

I'd love to say 'good luck with that', but with the established media's backing the left's 'luck' has proven able to sell the American people just about anything...

READ MORE

Matthews Charges Town Hall Protesters 'Upset Because We Have a Black President'

READ MORE