HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Found this gem in a Photoshop Contest at Fark titled "It seemed like a good idea at the time"





















Classic

*Side note* This entry won with 133 votes

This one got 24 votes

Prayers to Lefty

Phil Mickelson got hit with the bombshell of finding out his wife has breast cancer. From the sounds of it it isn't terminal, but with cancer, there are no definites.

After taking time to spend with his family, Phil is playing in the St. Jude Classic, and the U.S. Open.

His wife Amy will undergo surgery to remove the cancerous tissue over the 4th of July week, followed by a year of treatment.

God speed to Phil, Amy and their family.

My New Favorite Site

After seeing these two videos, Political Math is now my favorite new site. It is AMAZING! The visuals are just AWESOME!

Check them out...

Government Idea of "Equal Health Care"

The Kennedy Bill was released to the public over the weekend in a non-searchable version, but through the diligence of bloggers, a searchable text and PDF file is available for the public. Here are some of the things that were found in the bill (H/T to Keith Hennessey, emphasis mine)

Here are 15 things to know about the draft Kennedy-Dodd health bill.


1) The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).” The new Medical Advisory Council (see #3D) could exempt classes of people from this new tax. To avoid this tax, you would have to report your health insurance information for each month of the prior year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “any such other information as the Secretary may prescribe.”

2) The bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would have to offer insurance to their employees. Employers would have to pay at least a certain percentage (TBD) of the premium, and at least a certain dollar amount (TBD). Any employer that did not would pay a new tax. Again, the amount and structure of the tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and HHS. Small employers (TBD) would be exempt.

3) In the Kennedy-Dodd bill, the government would define a qualified plan:

A) All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.

B) A qualified plan would have to meet one of three levels of standardized cost-sharing defined by the government, “gold, silver, and bronze.” Details TBD.

C) Plans would be required to cover a list of preventive services approved by the Federal government.

D) A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.

E) The MAC would also define what “affordable and available coverage” is for different income levels, affecting who has to pay the tax if they don’t buy health insurance. The MAC’s rules would go into effect unless Congress passed a joint resolution (under a fast-track process) to turn them off.

4) Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors, … or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers, drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all have their premiums subsidized by the healthy.

5) Guaranteed issue and renewal combined with modified community rating would dramatically increase premiums for the overwhelming majority of those Americans who now have private health insurance. New Jersey is the best example of health insurance mandates gone wild. In the name of protecting their citizens, premiums are extremely high to cover the cross-subsidization of those who are uninsurable.

6)The bill would expand Medicaid to cover everyone up to 150% of poverty, with the Federal government paying all incremental costs (no State share). This means adding childless adults with income below 150% of the poverty line.

7) People from 150% of poverty up to 500% (!!) would get their health insurance subsidized (on a sliding scale). If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $110,000 would get a small subsidy. The bill does not indicate the source of funds to finance these subsidies.

8) People in high cost areas (e.g., New York City, Boston, South Florida, Chicago, Los Angeles) would get much bigger subsidies than those in low cost areas (e.g., much of the rest of the country, especially in rural areas). The subsidies are calculated as a percentage of the “reference premium,” which is determined based on the cost of plans sold in that particular geographic area

9) There would be a “public plan option” of health insurance offered by the federal government. In this new government health plan, the federal government would pay health care providers Medicare rates + 10%. The +10% is clearly intended to attract short-term legislative support from medical providers. I hope they are not so naive that they think that differential would last.

10) Group health plans with 250 or fewer members would be prohibited from self-insuring. ERISA would only be for big businesses.

11) States would have to set up “gateways” (health insurance exchanges) to market only qualified health insurance plans. If they don’t, the Feds will set up a gateway for them.

12) Health insurance plans in existence before the law would not have to meet the new insurance standards. This creates a weird bifurcated system and means you would (probably) be subject to a different set of rules when you change jobs.

13) The bill does not specify what spending will be cut or what taxes will be raised to pay for the increased spending. That is presumably for the Finance Committee to determine, since it’s their jurisdiction.

14) The bill defines an “eligible individual” as “a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United States.”

15) The bill would create a new pot of money for state gateways to pay “navigators” to educate people about the new bill, distribute information about health plans, and help people enroll. Navigators receiving federal funds “may include … unions, …”

So As Keith Sums it up;
* The government would mandate not only that you must buy health insurance, but what health insurance counts as “qualifying.”
Health insurance premiums would rise as a result of the law, meaning lower wages.
* The government determines what items and services must be covered.
* Healthy people would pay the same premiums as high risk people such as smokers/drinkers.
* Well over half of all Americans would be eligible for subsidies, and likely less than 5% will foot the bill.
* The government has unlimited ability to levy taxes if you do not buy "qualifying" insurance"
The government can require you provide him or her with “any such other information as [he/she] may prescribe.”


I too strongly oppose this bill.
Image Courtesy of Malkin

Creating More Government Has Opposite of Desired Affect

From AP;

"NEW YORK (AP) - The Federal Reserve announced a $1.2 trillion plan three months ago designed to push down mortgage rates and breathe life into the housing market.

But this and other big government spending programs are turning out to have the opposite effect. Rates for mortgages and U.S. Treasury debt are now marching higher as nervous bond investors fret about a resurgence of inflation."

Really? The government creates a false influx of cash equal to 15% of the United States total GDP and expects interest rates to go down?

Here's a question of Economics 101...If you have a sudden demand of loans without an increase in savings, what are the banks going to do? They are going to raise interest rates of both the loans and savings. They increase the loan rate to decrease the demand of lending, and then increase the savings interest rate to attract savers since most banks are required to have $1 in the vault for every $10 they loan out. The opposite occurs when people save more than they borrow, interest rates go down on both loans and savings accounts to attract loans and discourage saving.

So the government pumps in trillions of dollars that were intended to create more credit/borrowing, and they are surprised that the interest rates suddenly increase?

You know, something seems oddly familiar about this...Inflation is caused by "an increasing amount of money chasing a fixed amount of goods,”

*Begin slow clap...*

Obama Picks A Candidate

President Obama selected Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his candidate for Supreme Court Justice.

Many people point to the fact that 3 of her 5 decisions that were heard by the Supreme Court (Out of 380 total rulings) were overturned by the Supreme Court. At first glance that seems like a valid point to go after. I actually disagree.

The Supreme court hears approximately 80 cases per year. With that known, how many cases would they hear that the Supreme Court would simply agree with the judge. Probably not very many. I would think that the reason the Supreme Court would take on a case is when they feel it should be overturned, or that there is reason to believe that it could be overturned. Therefore a high overturn rate would be normal. Unless some one informs me otherwise, that will be my opinion on that.

HOWEVER, I do think that she is not a good candidate for SCoTUS for two simple reasons. 1) Her controversial statements that she has said on record, and 2) The fact that she has been chastised multiple times.

GO TECH!

Congrats to the TTU Baseball team who beat Jacksonville State 4-3 in 10 innings to win the OVC Tournament Championship. Their overall record this season was 30-22-1 (one tie from a game called after 5 innings due to rain).

This win qualifies them for an automatic bid into the NCAA Tournament next week.

Unsustainable?

From Bloomberg.com;

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Really? Barrack Obama says that we are spending uncontrollably? NOOOOO! NEVER! Hey,why don't you try practicing what you preach, chump.



















Barack Obama - Do as he says, not as he does.

Bill Miller Interview Podcast

There were 4 people who at one time or another were in the hauler. There was myself and Bill of course, then also, my dad was sitting in since he was at the races with me, and at one point Bill's wife came in for a minute. And no, the loud blurps are not farts. This was done in Bill's Hauler in the pits before the first round of qualifying on Saturday, and the funny cars were preparing to run, and were testing the engines. So, for everyone...enjoy!

Interview Link

Obama Wants Government To Control Bank Policies

Via The Hill;

President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country’s banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.

This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.

The Times dutifully dressed up the Obama plan as a way to avoid asking Congress for more money for failing banks. But the implications of the proposal are obvious to anyone who cares to look.

When the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) intervention was first outlined by the Bush administration, it did not call for any transfer of stock, of any sort, to the government. The Democrats demanded, as a price for their support, that the taxpayers “get something back” for the money they were lending to the banks. House Republicans, wise to what was going on, rejected the administration’s proposal and sought, instead, to provide insurance to banks, rather than outright cash. Their plan would, of course, not involve any transfer of stock. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) undercut his own party’s conservatives and went along with the Democratic plan, ensuring its passage.

But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock. “Preferred” means that these stockholders get the first crack at dividends, but only common stockholders can actually vote on company management or policy. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.

And whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. That’s called socialism.

Obama is dressing up the idea of the switch to common stock by noting that the conversion would provide the banks with capital they could use without a further taxpayer appropriation. While this is true, it flies in the face of the fact that an increasing number of big banks and brokerage houses are clamoring to give back the TARP money. Goldman-Sachs, for example, wants to buy back its freedom, as do many banks. Even AIG is selling off assets to dig its way out from under federal control. The reason, of course, is that company executives do not like the restrictions on executive pay and compensation that come with TARP money. It is for this reason that Chrysler Motors refused TARP funds.

With bank profits up and financial institutions trying to give back their money, there is no need for the conversion of the government stock from preferred to common — except to advance the political socialist agenda of this administration.