It's ironic, but not the least bit funny, that just when organizations are gathering petitions to demand that President Obama stick to his campaign promise for open, transparent debate of bills on the Hill, and in particular with the 1/6th of our economy Health Care Bill, that the Whitehouse posts a Tweet bragging about an "A" grade for its transparency.
I looked into the three sponsors of the report: Common Cause, Democracy 21 and the League of Woman Voters. I'm sure it's purely coincidental that Tim Geitner's wife has been involved with Common Cause, and that these firms have heavy lobbying budgets. I would never accuse any non-profit of ulterior motives. Just happened to notice.
If you are interested in signing a petition to demand that C-Span be allowed to tape the deliberations of the Health Care Bill as promised by candidate Obama, please click here. Only takes a moment. The fight is not over until the Bill is signed, so keep up the pressure.
As a reminder of the "Change" we were promised, here's candidate Obama promising transparency. Or maybe he agrees with Pelosi, and thinks that what you say on the campaign trail doesn't really count. Check out her look that assures us that we must have been morons to ever think so.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Who's the Putz with Obamacare?
I feel like a putz.
I have been self-employed for more than two decades, and thus have purchased my own health insurance. I always bought the highest deductible allowed to minimize my premiums, so in effect, self-insured for all but catastrophic illness or injury.
I have not filed a single health claim since the mid-80's -- until recently -- and boy did I ever get an education in the health care industry.
Typically I spent several thousand dollars a year on health care. A complete blood work up ran me close to $400. An unexpected injury visit to the doc could run $200-$250. Regular doctor visits typically cost $160 -$185.
To save everyone a lot of paperwork, I just handed over my credit card after each visit, figuring if I should ever hit my deductible one year, I would file everything then. In the meantime, look how considerate I was to save the doc's and insurance company all that unnecessary work.
I don't even remember why I finally handed over my insurance card, but did I ever get a "Stupid Tax" education. As a cash payer, with no paperwork to file, I paid full retail all these years. Now that I am filing, here are a couple of recent bills:
1. Annual checkup - Billed $225.00: Insurance company lopped off $87.62, paid $128.63 (which I didn't realize they would) and my bill came to $8.75. Savings: $216.25, or 96%.
2. Lab bill - $95.00: Insurance company refuses $62.32 and paid the $32.68 balance, though I don't know why since I didn't hit my deductible. Savings 100%.
Summary: last two medical bills totalled $320, which I would have paid back when I was the nice, considerate cash payer. Now that the doctors have to do all the paperwork and wait for the money, I only paid $8.75, or only 2.7%, even though I never came close to hitting my $3500 deductible last year.
Conclusions:
Let's set aside the lunacy of financially punishing the cash payer for a moment. Let's instead consider the fact that by using my insurance card, I felt virtually no financial pain for seeing the doctor. Sounds like what's being promised with the Obamacare bill. Everyone gets fabulous health coverage for less money. The only problem with the numbers, is that since everyone has to sign up, there won't be any putz's like me to subsidize the rest. The numbers simply cannot add up without either skyrocketing rates or rationed health care.
I have been self-employed for more than two decades, and thus have purchased my own health insurance. I always bought the highest deductible allowed to minimize my premiums, so in effect, self-insured for all but catastrophic illness or injury.
I have not filed a single health claim since the mid-80's -- until recently -- and boy did I ever get an education in the health care industry.
Typically I spent several thousand dollars a year on health care. A complete blood work up ran me close to $400. An unexpected injury visit to the doc could run $200-$250. Regular doctor visits typically cost $160 -$185.
To save everyone a lot of paperwork, I just handed over my credit card after each visit, figuring if I should ever hit my deductible one year, I would file everything then. In the meantime, look how considerate I was to save the doc's and insurance company all that unnecessary work.
I don't even remember why I finally handed over my insurance card, but did I ever get a "Stupid Tax" education. As a cash payer, with no paperwork to file, I paid full retail all these years. Now that I am filing, here are a couple of recent bills:
1. Annual checkup - Billed $225.00: Insurance company lopped off $87.62, paid $128.63 (which I didn't realize they would) and my bill came to $8.75. Savings: $216.25, or 96%.
2. Lab bill - $95.00: Insurance company refuses $62.32 and paid the $32.68 balance, though I don't know why since I didn't hit my deductible. Savings 100%.
Summary: last two medical bills totalled $320, which I would have paid back when I was the nice, considerate cash payer. Now that the doctors have to do all the paperwork and wait for the money, I only paid $8.75, or only 2.7%, even though I never came close to hitting my $3500 deductible last year.
Conclusions:
Let's set aside the lunacy of financially punishing the cash payer for a moment. Let's instead consider the fact that by using my insurance card, I felt virtually no financial pain for seeing the doctor. Sounds like what's being promised with the Obamacare bill. Everyone gets fabulous health coverage for less money. The only problem with the numbers, is that since everyone has to sign up, there won't be any putz's like me to subsidize the rest. The numbers simply cannot add up without either skyrocketing rates or rationed health care.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Real "Man-Made Disaster": Napolitano and Brennan via Obama
What kind of experience do you want as your head of Homeland Security during our War on Terror? Oh, excuse me, I forgot it's now "Overseas Contigency Operation".
Janet Napolitano does have government experience as former gov of AZ and previous Attorney General. But don't you think someone with a background in Intelligence might be better suited? Yes, she was involved in the OK bombing incident--after the fact-- but most of her work involved consumer protection and overall law enforcement. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about her capabilities.
I doubt the fact that she endorsed Obama early 2008, and was then named to his transition team had anything to do with the appointment, you know, as the person in charge of keeping America safe from terrorists?
Napolitano avoids using the word terrorism, preferring to call them "man-made disasters". Kinda like Obama never utters "Islamic radicals" or "extremists", or re-naming the war the "Overseas Contingency Operations". Maybe if we don't call them scary names, they will all go away?
Alongside Napolitano, we have John Brennan, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Brennan has considerable intelligence experience, and was once considered for the head of the CIA. Of course, he too was on the Obama transition team.
In yesterday's mea culpa about the Panty Bomber on Christmas Day, he admits that he needs to do better. You mean he didn't bring his "A" game to the task already?
Detroit Customs, during it's pre-arrival checklist, found the terrorist on a watch list and was prepared to do heavier screening when the plane landed. Too bad it never crossed their mind to notify the pilot that a potential terrorist was on the plane so that they could keep a better eye on him. It is Brennan's job to oversee plans to protect the US from terrorism.
So despite Brennan's experience, and closing in on a decade since 9-11, while under his watch, he didn't notice that the agencies weren't communicating effectively amongst themselves?
So instead of both parties losing their jobs for the "systemic failure" as would have happened in the real world outside of the Washington, they will no doubt be able to do a better job "if only they have more money and more power". Definitely. Let's reward the incompetent.
Seems to me that the only "man-made disaster" in this close call was Obama's appointments of these two.
Janet Napolitano does have government experience as former gov of AZ and previous Attorney General. But don't you think someone with a background in Intelligence might be better suited? Yes, she was involved in the OK bombing incident--after the fact-- but most of her work involved consumer protection and overall law enforcement. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about her capabilities.
I doubt the fact that she endorsed Obama early 2008, and was then named to his transition team had anything to do with the appointment, you know, as the person in charge of keeping America safe from terrorists?
Napolitano avoids using the word terrorism, preferring to call them "man-made disasters". Kinda like Obama never utters "Islamic radicals" or "extremists", or re-naming the war the "Overseas Contingency Operations". Maybe if we don't call them scary names, they will all go away?
Alongside Napolitano, we have John Brennan, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Brennan has considerable intelligence experience, and was once considered for the head of the CIA. Of course, he too was on the Obama transition team.
In yesterday's mea culpa about the Panty Bomber on Christmas Day, he admits that he needs to do better. You mean he didn't bring his "A" game to the task already?
Detroit Customs, during it's pre-arrival checklist, found the terrorist on a watch list and was prepared to do heavier screening when the plane landed. Too bad it never crossed their mind to notify the pilot that a potential terrorist was on the plane so that they could keep a better eye on him. It is Brennan's job to oversee plans to protect the US from terrorism.
So despite Brennan's experience, and closing in on a decade since 9-11, while under his watch, he didn't notice that the agencies weren't communicating effectively amongst themselves?
So instead of both parties losing their jobs for the "systemic failure" as would have happened in the real world outside of the Washington, they will no doubt be able to do a better job "if only they have more money and more power". Definitely. Let's reward the incompetent.
Seems to me that the only "man-made disaster" in this close call was Obama's appointments of these two.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Beware of that Terrorism Thingy
A couple of years ago, I was trying to fly home from a vacation in Italy. I had a changeover in Paris for the flight back to JFK. My first plane was late, which caused me to miss my connection. The unexpected change in plans triggered me as a possible terrorist.
I was inspected, poked and proded. I was pulled out of the regular security lines for yet more inspections and reviews of my passport, and even tested once for explosives. It is inconceivable to me that after all of these additional checks that I could have gotten anything untoward onto the plane. The security agent in NYC even asked me what I had done to cause whatever tagged me as high risk.
I realize I must have looked pretty dangerous as a mid-40's, blonde haired woman who had not had a passport stamp in twenty years. In the aftermath of 9-11, I had no problem with this, though I thought that my change in plans could be readily verified as a matter out of my control, thus freeing up the security detail so they could inspect more likely suspects.
Fast forward to Christmas Day 2009: A young man, pays cash for a ticket on the flight date, is allowed to board with no passport, his father has notified authorities that he has become radical, and he has traveled to Yemen (OK, you got me...since he didn't have a passport, security would not have known this. Thus a really good reason why they check your passport when you first enter secure areas, and then again, just as you board the plane, which begs the question: how did he get through the initial screening to be allowed to enter the gate?).
I trigger a red alert for missing a connection that was out of my control, but this turkey, with several red flags manages to board a US plane with explosives.
Can someone please explain to me how it took security no time to flag me as a possible terrorist, but couldn't pick up that this guy needed a second look? I can only attribute the change in security to a new attitude and the inane political correctness that has been imposed by the White House.
Footnote: Why aren't they releasing the video of the man that talked the agent into allowing him to board without a passport? A witness describes him as approximately 6', well-dressed, with no accent (so he sounds American) that looked to be of Indian or Palestinian descent. Wouldn't the administration want to find and question this man, and wouldn't blasting his photo on the news and internet make identifying him a virtual certainty?
I am puzzled why the Nigerian with the panty bomb who wanted to kill hundreds of Americans was arrested only as a common criminal instead of as an enemy of the state which would let the military interrogate and handle him. No, the administration doesn't like to call him a terrorist...this is only another isolated incident. So now we taxpayers are paying for his lawyers and giving him rights like he is an American, including Miranda Rights, so naturally he's clammed up.
Let's do the math: Don't show us the video + Don't allow the military to handle the interrogation and prosecution = Doesn't look like the administration takes this terrorism 'thingy', as Bush might've called it, very seriously. But I bet Bush's team would've nailed him.
I was inspected, poked and proded. I was pulled out of the regular security lines for yet more inspections and reviews of my passport, and even tested once for explosives. It is inconceivable to me that after all of these additional checks that I could have gotten anything untoward onto the plane. The security agent in NYC even asked me what I had done to cause whatever tagged me as high risk.
I realize I must have looked pretty dangerous as a mid-40's, blonde haired woman who had not had a passport stamp in twenty years. In the aftermath of 9-11, I had no problem with this, though I thought that my change in plans could be readily verified as a matter out of my control, thus freeing up the security detail so they could inspect more likely suspects.
Fast forward to Christmas Day 2009: A young man, pays cash for a ticket on the flight date, is allowed to board with no passport, his father has notified authorities that he has become radical, and he has traveled to Yemen (OK, you got me...since he didn't have a passport, security would not have known this. Thus a really good reason why they check your passport when you first enter secure areas, and then again, just as you board the plane, which begs the question: how did he get through the initial screening to be allowed to enter the gate?).
I trigger a red alert for missing a connection that was out of my control, but this turkey, with several red flags manages to board a US plane with explosives.
Can someone please explain to me how it took security no time to flag me as a possible terrorist, but couldn't pick up that this guy needed a second look? I can only attribute the change in security to a new attitude and the inane political correctness that has been imposed by the White House.
Footnote: Why aren't they releasing the video of the man that talked the agent into allowing him to board without a passport? A witness describes him as approximately 6', well-dressed, with no accent (so he sounds American) that looked to be of Indian or Palestinian descent. Wouldn't the administration want to find and question this man, and wouldn't blasting his photo on the news and internet make identifying him a virtual certainty?
I am puzzled why the Nigerian with the panty bomb who wanted to kill hundreds of Americans was arrested only as a common criminal instead of as an enemy of the state which would let the military interrogate and handle him. No, the administration doesn't like to call him a terrorist...this is only another isolated incident. So now we taxpayers are paying for his lawyers and giving him rights like he is an American, including Miranda Rights, so naturally he's clammed up.
Let's do the math: Don't show us the video + Don't allow the military to handle the interrogation and prosecution = Doesn't look like the administration takes this terrorism 'thingy', as Bush might've called it, very seriously. But I bet Bush's team would've nailed him.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Somali Ass-lym Policy
I read in today's paper how a Somali man, with possible ties to al-Qaeda, broke into the home of the Danish cartoonist who drew Muhammad with a bomb exploding out of his turban. The jihadist was armed with an ax and knife, and was fortunately shot by police before he had the opportunity to use them.
Three pages later, I read about a large influx of Somalis trying to circumvent traditional immigration channels by traveling to Mexico and taking a cab to the US border agents in San Diego, and then asking for political asylum.
According to Mark Hetfield, senior VP for the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, "The US has closed most of the doors for Somalis to come in through the refugee program, so they've found alternative ways to get in. This is their new route." Somalis made up the largest percentage of people asking for asylum in the US for 2009.
The article's subject claimed Islamic militants threatened him. However, he could offer no one to corroborate his testimony, not even via email to friends and family in Somalia.
The terrorist group, al-Shabab, linked with al-Qaeda, and other militant groups now control most of Somalia outside of Mogasishu.
So despite the fact that we know nothing about this man, and he comes from a country where many people want to destroy the US, the judge ruled, with only the man's testimony, that he could move to the US.
I feel for people who are suffering just like everyone else, but for Pete's sake, could the government PLEASE use some common sense? Gee, do ya think the bad guys might lie to the nice judge?
I smell a Detroit airplane incident brewing. And then Mr. O will order a full investigation in the tragic breakdown in our Homeland Security system. Again.
Update on 1-4-10: On yesterday's CNN's "State of the Union", Obama's lead counterterrorism advisor John Brennan said there was no smoking gun that would indicate that we should have prevented Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board a plane destined to the US. If they couldn't see a smoking gun, I'd like to know what they were smoking.
Three pages later, I read about a large influx of Somalis trying to circumvent traditional immigration channels by traveling to Mexico and taking a cab to the US border agents in San Diego, and then asking for political asylum.
According to Mark Hetfield, senior VP for the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, "The US has closed most of the doors for Somalis to come in through the refugee program, so they've found alternative ways to get in. This is their new route." Somalis made up the largest percentage of people asking for asylum in the US for 2009.
The article's subject claimed Islamic militants threatened him. However, he could offer no one to corroborate his testimony, not even via email to friends and family in Somalia.
The terrorist group, al-Shabab, linked with al-Qaeda, and other militant groups now control most of Somalia outside of Mogasishu.
So despite the fact that we know nothing about this man, and he comes from a country where many people want to destroy the US, the judge ruled, with only the man's testimony, that he could move to the US.
I feel for people who are suffering just like everyone else, but for Pete's sake, could the government PLEASE use some common sense? Gee, do ya think the bad guys might lie to the nice judge?
I smell a Detroit airplane incident brewing. And then Mr. O will order a full investigation in the tragic breakdown in our Homeland Security system. Again.
Update on 1-4-10: On yesterday's CNN's "State of the Union", Obama's lead counterterrorism advisor John Brennan said there was no smoking gun that would indicate that we should have prevented Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board a plane destined to the US. If they couldn't see a smoking gun, I'd like to know what they were smoking.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Health Care Monstrosity
Have been out of town and am playing catch up with a rental remodeling job,so haven't been posting regularly. But I wanted to make sure as many people as possible read the following WSJ article on the Health Care bill. Please read it, forward it to your contacts and also contacts your legislators.
Don't forget: a grassroots effort to contact and/or visit your legislators about the Health Care bill is scheduled for noon this Thursday. Please contact him/her to ask for a 'no' vote, and spread the word. This monstrosity must be stopped!
Don't forget: a grassroots effort to contact and/or visit your legislators about the Health Care bill is scheduled for noon this Thursday. Please contact him/her to ask for a 'no' vote, and spread the word. This monstrosity must be stopped!
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Well Done Washington! Stimulus Package a Hit (to the Taxpayer)
The White House is thrilled to report today that the $787 billion dollar Stimulus Package is responsible for creating or saving 640,239 jobs. Well done Washington! Uh oh. I just did the math...that works out to $1,229,228 and 40 cents a job. Hope those were well paying jobs it created. Yes I know that not all of the money has been spent yet, BUT STILL!!!
Of course it gets worse: Chris Johnston, Director of the Government Efficiency Division of the Indiana state budget office admits that the state can't really say whether the jobs it reported 'saved' would actually have been lost.
I am traveling today, so I don't have the article in front of me, but my fine state of NC used some odd phrase that sounded suspiciously Orwellian about describing the jobs it had 'saved' via the Stimulus Package. (I'll post it when I return).
Leave it to Washington to crow about the success of a failed program, yet still need to embellish the figures in an attempt to make things look brighter.
Meow. Maybe I'm being a tad catty. Obama says his Stimulus Package will create 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.
Let's see (in just 61 days,) that works out to a mere $224,857.14 a job. One question: where do I apply?
7 pm Postscript: Jake Tapper of ABC news is doing his job (unlike most of the main stream media): Here's his take on today's announcement. Bad news: turns out I'm a 'Calculator Abuser". I guess I just don't understand Washington math.
Of course it gets worse: Chris Johnston, Director of the Government Efficiency Division of the Indiana state budget office admits that the state can't really say whether the jobs it reported 'saved' would actually have been lost.
I am traveling today, so I don't have the article in front of me, but my fine state of NC used some odd phrase that sounded suspiciously Orwellian about describing the jobs it had 'saved' via the Stimulus Package. (I'll post it when I return).
Leave it to Washington to crow about the success of a failed program, yet still need to embellish the figures in an attempt to make things look brighter.
Meow. Maybe I'm being a tad catty. Obama says his Stimulus Package will create 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.
Let's see (in just 61 days,) that works out to a mere $224,857.14 a job. One question: where do I apply?
7 pm Postscript: Jake Tapper of ABC news is doing his job (unlike most of the main stream media): Here's his take on today's announcement. Bad news: turns out I'm a 'Calculator Abuser". I guess I just don't understand Washington math.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)