The vote tally for the Senate health care bill Photo: AP
Wow. Talk about close. 219-212. No wonder the anti-abortion Democrats were able to secure some last-minute concessions. If four representatives had switched sides, Obama would have lost the vote.
Has America been more politically divided over an issue since the Civil War? Civil Rights? At least that issue cut across party lines, whereas health care reform — or “socialised medicine”, as its opponents call it — has divided the parties right down the middle. Not a single Republican voted for the bill. (Admittedly, 34 Democrats voted against it.) This was a bitterly fought legislative campaign that gave the lie to Obama’s claim that his Presidency would be “postpartisan”. He is the most partisan President in living memory.
In this respect, Obama has had to conduct himself more like a British Prime Minister than an American Head of State. When I studied A-level politics back in the Reagan era, I remember being taught that the two great American political parties, unlike ours, only existed as electoral machines. They coalesced around one candidate every four years, then fractured again, with Presidents bolting together bi-partisan coalitions to push through legislation. The President didn’t depend for his survival on retaining the support of his party in the same way that our Prime Minister does and, hence, his party didn’t have to stay together after he’d been elected, at least not to the same extent. This, I was taught, was one of the advantages of America’s separation of powers. Because the executive branch of the government didn’t need to control the legislative branch in order to remain in office, it hadn’t developed anything like the same control mechanisms as the British Prime Minister. This meant the British people had more to fear from the centralisation of power than Americans. Elective dictatorship — the phrase Lord Hailsham coined to describe the dominance of Parliament by the government of the day — was a greater threat to Britain than it was to America.
The emergence of elective dictatorship in America — with the President having to use every stick at his disposal to beat his parliamentary party into submission — is surely one of the least attractive aspects of Obama’s Presidency. According to today’s New York Times:
Never in modern memory has a major piece of legislation passed without a single Republican vote. Even President Lyndon B. Johnson got just shy of half of Republicans in the House to vote for Medicare in 1965, a piece of legislation that was denounced with many of the same words used to oppose this one. That may be the true measure of how much has changed in Washington in the ensuing 45 years, and how Mr. Obama’s own strategy is changing with the discovery that the approach to governing he had in mind simply will not work.
“Let’s face it, he’s failed in the effort to be the nonpolarizing president, the one who can use rationality and calm debate to bridge our traditional divides,” said Peter Beinart, a liberal essayist who is publishing a history of hubris in politics.
It seems unlikely, to put it mildly, that this is the end of the affair. No doubt the Republicans in the Senate have a few delaying tricks up their sleeves and opponents of the bill, having failed to stop its passage in the legislative branch of the government, will switch their attention to the judicial branch. It will be interesting to see how far Obama can use the powers vested in him as President to railroad through these reforms. An elected dictator? I cannot see a freedom-loving people putting up with such a figure for long.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
New Health-Care Taxes Help Obama ‘Spread the Wealth’ (Update1)
March 22 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said on the campaign trail in October 2008 that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” With Obama on the verge of signing sweeping health-care overhaul legislation, he’s about to do just that.
If the final version of the legislation passes the Senate, high-income investors will pay higher Medicare taxes, tax breaks for out-of-pocket medical deductions will be curtailed, and it will cost insurance companies more to pay executives millions of dollars. Those levies will help fund expansion of Medicaid services for the poor and subsidize health insurance to cover millions who don’t currently have benefits.
“It’s very clear that taxes are levied on the wealthy and the benefits will spread across the entire income distribution, with a lot going to expanded Medicaid distribution and expanding health insurance,” said Roberton Williams, an economist at the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research institute backed by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “One couldn’t claim he didn’t keep that promise” to “spread the wealth around.”
In all, the bill would generate $409.2 billion in additional taxes by 2019, according to an analysis by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan agency. The bill also imposes about $69 billion more in penalties for individuals and businesses who don’t meet mandates to buy insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office, another nonpartisan agency.
Higher Medicare Taxes
Most of the revenue would come from higher Medicare taxes on about 1 million individuals earning more than $200,000 and about 4 million couples filing jointly who make more than $250,000.
The legislation would for the first time apply Medicare taxes to investment income received by these households, beginning in 2013. The 3.8 percent rate would apply to unearned income such as realized capital gains, dividends, interest, rents and royalties. It wouldn’t apply to other income subject to income taxes, including interest from municipal bonds and retirement accounts such as 401(k) plans until funds are withdrawn.
Obama’s budget proposes to allow the existing 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains to rise to 20 percent in 2011 for the same high-earners. Layering a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on top of that would mean a new top rate on dividends and capital gains of 23.8 percent. The top tax rates on interest and rental income would rise to as high as about 44 percent, assuming other Obama tax increases on high-earners are enacted.
Individual’s Share
The bill also increases the individual’s share of Medicare tax currently imposed on salaries starting at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples to 2.35 percent, from 1.45 percent currently.
The combination of the new Medicare taxes and Obama’s budget proposals, if they were in place this year, would cost a married couple with a household income of $5 million an extra $287,100 in taxes, according to analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax in Washington.
The Medicare taxes superseded an earlier Senate proposal to tax high-value employer-provided insurance coverage, dubbed “Cadillac plans.” That 40 percent excise tax was delayed until 2018, when it would begin to apply to benefits over $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for couples.
Those thresholds would be indexed to inflation, which grows at a slower pace than the cost of health care, meaning more employers would likely face the levy over time.
Out-of-Pocket Costs
Other provisions likely to affect higher-income individuals would scale back tax preferences associated with paying out-of- pocket medical expenses. Starting in 2013, Americans under 65 won’t be able to deduct medical expenses until they exceed 10 percent of income, up from 7.5 percent now; retirees would keep the lower threshold.
The bill in 2011 places new restrictions on what can be purchased using special savings accounts funded with pre-tax dollars including health savings accounts. Improper withdrawals from the accounts also would be hit with a new 20 percent tax.
And the legislation for the first time would place a $2,500 limit on what can be contributed to employer-sponsored flexible spending accounts, another type of account funded with pre-tax dollars that can be used to pay for medicines, co-payments, and other expenses.
Employers currently set their own limits, typically between $3,000 and $5,000 in the absence of a government cap. This change would cost an average worker about $625 in tax savings, according to WageWorks Inc., a San Mateo, California, company that administers 1.5 million accounts.
Tanning Salons
Consumers who frequent tanning salons would pay a 10 percent excise tax, and those who buy devices such as wheelchairs would pay a 2.3 percent excise tax. Drugmakers may pass on a $3 billion annual fee. Insurance companies would be denied deductions when they pay their executives over $500,000.
Under the reconciliation bill that is now before the Senate, individuals who don’t purchase insurance would be subject to a fine of $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016. Individuals may be subject to a charge equal to as much as 2.5 percent of their income in 2016, if the total is greater than the flat payment.
Employers with 50 or more workers would pay $2,000 per worker if they don’t offer health insurance. The legislation offers a small business tax credit to help pay for employer- provided premiums.
Companies also would face more scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service for using tax shelters.
To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan J. Donmoyer in Washington at rdonmoyer@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 22, 2010 14:40 EDT
If the final version of the legislation passes the Senate, high-income investors will pay higher Medicare taxes, tax breaks for out-of-pocket medical deductions will be curtailed, and it will cost insurance companies more to pay executives millions of dollars. Those levies will help fund expansion of Medicaid services for the poor and subsidize health insurance to cover millions who don’t currently have benefits.
“It’s very clear that taxes are levied on the wealthy and the benefits will spread across the entire income distribution, with a lot going to expanded Medicaid distribution and expanding health insurance,” said Roberton Williams, an economist at the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research institute backed by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “One couldn’t claim he didn’t keep that promise” to “spread the wealth around.”
In all, the bill would generate $409.2 billion in additional taxes by 2019, according to an analysis by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan agency. The bill also imposes about $69 billion more in penalties for individuals and businesses who don’t meet mandates to buy insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office, another nonpartisan agency.
Higher Medicare Taxes
Most of the revenue would come from higher Medicare taxes on about 1 million individuals earning more than $200,000 and about 4 million couples filing jointly who make more than $250,000.
The legislation would for the first time apply Medicare taxes to investment income received by these households, beginning in 2013. The 3.8 percent rate would apply to unearned income such as realized capital gains, dividends, interest, rents and royalties. It wouldn’t apply to other income subject to income taxes, including interest from municipal bonds and retirement accounts such as 401(k) plans until funds are withdrawn.
Obama’s budget proposes to allow the existing 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains to rise to 20 percent in 2011 for the same high-earners. Layering a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on top of that would mean a new top rate on dividends and capital gains of 23.8 percent. The top tax rates on interest and rental income would rise to as high as about 44 percent, assuming other Obama tax increases on high-earners are enacted.
Individual’s Share
The bill also increases the individual’s share of Medicare tax currently imposed on salaries starting at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples to 2.35 percent, from 1.45 percent currently.
The combination of the new Medicare taxes and Obama’s budget proposals, if they were in place this year, would cost a married couple with a household income of $5 million an extra $287,100 in taxes, according to analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax in Washington.
The Medicare taxes superseded an earlier Senate proposal to tax high-value employer-provided insurance coverage, dubbed “Cadillac plans.” That 40 percent excise tax was delayed until 2018, when it would begin to apply to benefits over $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for couples.
Those thresholds would be indexed to inflation, which grows at a slower pace than the cost of health care, meaning more employers would likely face the levy over time.
Out-of-Pocket Costs
Other provisions likely to affect higher-income individuals would scale back tax preferences associated with paying out-of- pocket medical expenses. Starting in 2013, Americans under 65 won’t be able to deduct medical expenses until they exceed 10 percent of income, up from 7.5 percent now; retirees would keep the lower threshold.
The bill in 2011 places new restrictions on what can be purchased using special savings accounts funded with pre-tax dollars including health savings accounts. Improper withdrawals from the accounts also would be hit with a new 20 percent tax.
And the legislation for the first time would place a $2,500 limit on what can be contributed to employer-sponsored flexible spending accounts, another type of account funded with pre-tax dollars that can be used to pay for medicines, co-payments, and other expenses.
Employers currently set their own limits, typically between $3,000 and $5,000 in the absence of a government cap. This change would cost an average worker about $625 in tax savings, according to WageWorks Inc., a San Mateo, California, company that administers 1.5 million accounts.
Tanning Salons
Consumers who frequent tanning salons would pay a 10 percent excise tax, and those who buy devices such as wheelchairs would pay a 2.3 percent excise tax. Drugmakers may pass on a $3 billion annual fee. Insurance companies would be denied deductions when they pay their executives over $500,000.
Under the reconciliation bill that is now before the Senate, individuals who don’t purchase insurance would be subject to a fine of $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016. Individuals may be subject to a charge equal to as much as 2.5 percent of their income in 2016, if the total is greater than the flat payment.
Employers with 50 or more workers would pay $2,000 per worker if they don’t offer health insurance. The legislation offers a small business tax credit to help pay for employer- provided premiums.
Companies also would face more scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service for using tax shelters.
To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan J. Donmoyer in Washington at rdonmoyer@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 22, 2010 14:40 EDT
Income Redistribution: New Taxes for Health Care Help Obama ‘Spread the Wealth Around’
Ryan J. Donmoyer
Bloomberg
March 22, 2010
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*
President Barack Obama said on the campaign trail in October 2008 that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” With Obama on the verge of signing sweeping health-care overhaul legislation, he’s about to do just that.
High-income investors would pay higher Medicare taxes, tax breaks for out-of-pocket medical deductions would be curtailed, and it would cost insurance companies more to pay executives millions of dollars. Those levies will help fund expansion of Medicaid services for the poor and subsidize health insurance to cover millions who don’t currently have benefits.
“It’s very clear that taxes are levied on the wealthy and the benefits will spread across the entire income distribution, with a lot going to expanded Medicaid distribution and expanding health insurance,” said Roberton Williams, an economist at the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research institute backed by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “One couldn’t claim he didn’t keep that promise” to “spread the wealth around.”
Read entire article
* Social bookmarks
* Social bookmarks
* Email this article
* Email this article
*
* Print this page
*
* Share on Twitter
Comment Rules
11 Responses to “Income Redistribution: New Taxes for Health Care Help Obama ‘Spread the Wealth Around’”
1. Carla Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:16 am
I just don’t understand people. If I go to yahoo answers and talk about what the Health care plan really is and the long term problems it could cause, some tell me I’m nuts and my foil hat is crocked. What is that? Are people blind about Obama? I guess some can’t take the truth.
Reply
Bloomberg
March 22, 2010
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*
President Barack Obama said on the campaign trail in October 2008 that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” With Obama on the verge of signing sweeping health-care overhaul legislation, he’s about to do just that.
High-income investors would pay higher Medicare taxes, tax breaks for out-of-pocket medical deductions would be curtailed, and it would cost insurance companies more to pay executives millions of dollars. Those levies will help fund expansion of Medicaid services for the poor and subsidize health insurance to cover millions who don’t currently have benefits.
“It’s very clear that taxes are levied on the wealthy and the benefits will spread across the entire income distribution, with a lot going to expanded Medicaid distribution and expanding health insurance,” said Roberton Williams, an economist at the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research institute backed by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “One couldn’t claim he didn’t keep that promise” to “spread the wealth around.”
Read entire article
* Social bookmarks
* Social bookmarks
* Email this article
* Email this article
*
* Print this page
*
* Share on Twitter
Comment Rules
11 Responses to “Income Redistribution: New Taxes for Health Care Help Obama ‘Spread the Wealth Around’”
1. Carla Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:16 am
I just don’t understand people. If I go to yahoo answers and talk about what the Health care plan really is and the long term problems it could cause, some tell me I’m nuts and my foil hat is crocked. What is that? Are people blind about Obama? I guess some can’t take the truth.
Reply
Brown Peddles State Controlled Web Under Auspices of “Social Justice”
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 22, 2010
Our rulers are slick. They know we will not stand for an outright takeover of the internet, so they are cloaking the effort under a thin veneer of “social justice” and broadband for all.
Gordon Brown in Britain is leading the charge:
Every home in the UK will have access to “super-fast” broadband by 2020, according to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
The government has already pledged to offer super-fast internet connections to 90 percent of the country by 2017, as part of the Digital Economy Bill, paid for by a ‘broadband tax’ – a £6 per year levy on telephone lines.
Now, Brown has revealed it will take just three years to ensure the remainder of the country also has access to the service.
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*
Nice. The average Brit will pay to have the internet stolen from him and turned into a control mechanism.
Brown “promised everyone in the UK a personalized webpage within four years for accessing services in a bid to cut the cost of face-to-face contacts with officials.”
A “personalized webpage” approved by Brown and the government, of course. It will also be another mechanism for the plebs to interface with officialdom.
Have no doubt. If Brown and Obama and the other front-men of the ruling elite have their way, the free and open internet will eventually go the way of the Brontosaurus. They are determined to neuter they only vehicle for free expression and liberty because it threatens their plan to turn the earth into a huge and sprawling slave labor and control gulag. Every day we are exposing them for the bloody tyrants they are and they are desperate to put an end to it.
As usual, they will try to sell this theft as a good thing.
Infowars.com
March 22, 2010
Our rulers are slick. They know we will not stand for an outright takeover of the internet, so they are cloaking the effort under a thin veneer of “social justice” and broadband for all.
Gordon Brown in Britain is leading the charge:
Every home in the UK will have access to “super-fast” broadband by 2020, according to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
The government has already pledged to offer super-fast internet connections to 90 percent of the country by 2017, as part of the Digital Economy Bill, paid for by a ‘broadband tax’ – a £6 per year levy on telephone lines.
Now, Brown has revealed it will take just three years to ensure the remainder of the country also has access to the service.
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*
Nice. The average Brit will pay to have the internet stolen from him and turned into a control mechanism.
Brown “promised everyone in the UK a personalized webpage within four years for accessing services in a bid to cut the cost of face-to-face contacts with officials.”
A “personalized webpage” approved by Brown and the government, of course. It will also be another mechanism for the plebs to interface with officialdom.
Have no doubt. If Brown and Obama and the other front-men of the ruling elite have their way, the free and open internet will eventually go the way of the Brontosaurus. They are determined to neuter they only vehicle for free expression and liberty because it threatens their plan to turn the earth into a huge and sprawling slave labor and control gulag. Every day we are exposing them for the bloody tyrants they are and they are desperate to put an end to it.
As usual, they will try to sell this theft as a good thing.
The Politics of Obammunism
March 22, 2010
The Politics of Obammunism
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on March 22, 2010 07:36 AM
The Obammunist’s socialized health care legislation promises to cut Medicare spending by hundreds of billions of dollars while increasing Medicaid spending by hundreds of billions. At least half of all Medicare enrollees vote Republican; almost all Medicaid enrollees vote Democrat. This is why the Obammunists are so euphoric today.
Wicked Witch Pelosi (D-Botox) says this law is reminiscent of the Civil Rights legislation of the ’60s. Not really. It’s more like Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration law that drastically reduced the number of Europeans who could immigrate to the U.S., more than half of which voted Republican, while vastly expanding Third World immigration quotas, almost all of whom vote Democrat.
Are the health insurance companies really upset over the fact that the Obammunists have mandated that every last adult in America must purchase their products or face fines (or possibly imprisonment)? Does anyone deny that this government-mandated explosion in demand will lead to an equally explosive increase in costs?
The Politics of Obammunism
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on March 22, 2010 07:36 AM
The Obammunist’s socialized health care legislation promises to cut Medicare spending by hundreds of billions of dollars while increasing Medicaid spending by hundreds of billions. At least half of all Medicare enrollees vote Republican; almost all Medicaid enrollees vote Democrat. This is why the Obammunists are so euphoric today.
Wicked Witch Pelosi (D-Botox) says this law is reminiscent of the Civil Rights legislation of the ’60s. Not really. It’s more like Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration law that drastically reduced the number of Europeans who could immigrate to the U.S., more than half of which voted Republican, while vastly expanding Third World immigration quotas, almost all of whom vote Democrat.
Are the health insurance companies really upset over the fact that the Obammunists have mandated that every last adult in America must purchase their products or face fines (or possibly imprisonment)? Does anyone deny that this government-mandated explosion in demand will lead to an equally explosive increase in costs?
Idaho Leads State Revolt Against Naked Body Scanners
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, March 22, 2010
Idaho Leads State Revolt Against Naked Body Scanners
Idaho has set the example for others states to follow in the continuing revolt against naked body scanners, by passing a law that limits the use of the x-ray scanning devices in airports and government buildings and also forces Homeland Security to disprove health concerns.
Athol Republican Rep. Phil Hart’s bill, which was passed 58-9 on Thursday by the Idaho state legislature, limits use of the scanners to people who have failed a prior security check, such as a metal detector.
The bill also enforces by law the option to take a manual pat-down as an alternative to the body scan, a choice that was never available in other countries that have introduced the scanners and one that the TSA has made clear it seeks to abolish, forcing everyone to use the scanners.
“Hart’s bill would also require the Idaho Department of Homeland Security to prove the scanners aren’t detrimental to health before any machine is allowed to operate in the state,” reports the Associated Press.
Despite governments claiming that backscatter x-ray systems produce radiation too low to pose a threat, the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.
Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”
“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg.
Responding to questions about a potential battle between federal and state jurisdiction over the use of naked scanners in Idaho, Hart said that the state could use “police power” to regulate the machine’s usage if they are found to be harmful to humans.
“Hart said that in his research and talking to professionals about the machines, he has been told that the machines irradiate people to the level which equals that person spending one full day in the sun,” according to the Idaho Reporter. “Hart said the science isn’t conclusive because long-term testing of the machines has yet to be done. Because of the radiation used to produce images, Hart is concerned that those who travel often would be adversely affected more than average Americans who travel only a few times each year. Under directives of Hart’s plan, the head of Homeland Security in Idaho would need to certify the safety of the machines prior to installation and use in public facilities in the state.”
Hart highlighted the fact that the body scanners do produce naked images of the body, despite a propaganda campaign to convince Americans otherwise, and the bill addresses this by prohibiting the storage and transfer of the images produced by the scanners.
Hart’s bill was supported by House Democrat, Rep. Shirley Ringo, who reminded lawmakers that the response to the 9/11 attacks was supposed to be an attempt to preserve freedom and liberty, as well as Rep. Russ Matthews, R-Idaho Falls, who warned that the federal government should not be allowed “to pillage our freedom in the name of security.”
The bill also attracted support from both sides of the political spectrum, enlisting endorsement from both the ACLU and Gun Owners of America.
We are joining the hundreds of other Americans who have filed complaints in protesting naked body scanners as an affront to privacy, dignity, and a health risk, by launching our naked body scanner contest in an effort to focus public attention on how we must stop these machines now before they are installed in the streets and become another tool of control and oppression as part of the prison planet being constructed around us.
Not only have authorities in Europe promised to roll out mobile body scanners on the streets to mass scan crowds of people, but Homeland Security has even gone a step further, developing Orwellian mind-reading devices that are set to be installed as part of unconstitutional checkpoints at public events.
We are offering our biggest prize fund ever of $15,000 for the entries that most successfully highlight the true agenda behind naked body scanners and where this is all heading unless we put our foot down now and help to build momentum behind public pressure to remove the scanners from airports.
As the video below illustrates, the fact that naked body scanner machines in the U.S. are manned by TSA thugs who are routinely caught abusing their power in treating the public like prison inmates only heightens the danger posed by the use abuse of the new devices.
Prison Planet.com
Monday, March 22, 2010
Idaho Leads State Revolt Against Naked Body Scanners
Idaho has set the example for others states to follow in the continuing revolt against naked body scanners, by passing a law that limits the use of the x-ray scanning devices in airports and government buildings and also forces Homeland Security to disprove health concerns.
Athol Republican Rep. Phil Hart’s bill, which was passed 58-9 on Thursday by the Idaho state legislature, limits use of the scanners to people who have failed a prior security check, such as a metal detector.
The bill also enforces by law the option to take a manual pat-down as an alternative to the body scan, a choice that was never available in other countries that have introduced the scanners and one that the TSA has made clear it seeks to abolish, forcing everyone to use the scanners.
“Hart’s bill would also require the Idaho Department of Homeland Security to prove the scanners aren’t detrimental to health before any machine is allowed to operate in the state,” reports the Associated Press.
Despite governments claiming that backscatter x-ray systems produce radiation too low to pose a threat, the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.
Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”
“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg.
Responding to questions about a potential battle between federal and state jurisdiction over the use of naked scanners in Idaho, Hart said that the state could use “police power” to regulate the machine’s usage if they are found to be harmful to humans.
“Hart said that in his research and talking to professionals about the machines, he has been told that the machines irradiate people to the level which equals that person spending one full day in the sun,” according to the Idaho Reporter. “Hart said the science isn’t conclusive because long-term testing of the machines has yet to be done. Because of the radiation used to produce images, Hart is concerned that those who travel often would be adversely affected more than average Americans who travel only a few times each year. Under directives of Hart’s plan, the head of Homeland Security in Idaho would need to certify the safety of the machines prior to installation and use in public facilities in the state.”
Hart highlighted the fact that the body scanners do produce naked images of the body, despite a propaganda campaign to convince Americans otherwise, and the bill addresses this by prohibiting the storage and transfer of the images produced by the scanners.
Hart’s bill was supported by House Democrat, Rep. Shirley Ringo, who reminded lawmakers that the response to the 9/11 attacks was supposed to be an attempt to preserve freedom and liberty, as well as Rep. Russ Matthews, R-Idaho Falls, who warned that the federal government should not be allowed “to pillage our freedom in the name of security.”
The bill also attracted support from both sides of the political spectrum, enlisting endorsement from both the ACLU and Gun Owners of America.
We are joining the hundreds of other Americans who have filed complaints in protesting naked body scanners as an affront to privacy, dignity, and a health risk, by launching our naked body scanner contest in an effort to focus public attention on how we must stop these machines now before they are installed in the streets and become another tool of control and oppression as part of the prison planet being constructed around us.
Not only have authorities in Europe promised to roll out mobile body scanners on the streets to mass scan crowds of people, but Homeland Security has even gone a step further, developing Orwellian mind-reading devices that are set to be installed as part of unconstitutional checkpoints at public events.
We are offering our biggest prize fund ever of $15,000 for the entries that most successfully highlight the true agenda behind naked body scanners and where this is all heading unless we put our foot down now and help to build momentum behind public pressure to remove the scanners from airports.
As the video below illustrates, the fact that naked body scanner machines in the U.S. are manned by TSA thugs who are routinely caught abusing their power in treating the public like prison inmates only heightens the danger posed by the use abuse of the new devices.
AT A GLANCE: Health-Care Stocks Up After House OK's Overhaul
AT A GLANCE: Health-Care Stocks Up After House OK's Overhaul
THE NEWS: Health-care stocks led the stock market higher Monday after the U.S. House Sunday approved a historic health-care overhaul designed to bring health insurance to 32 million more Americas while subjecting U.S. industries to a dramatically redrawn and newly regulated marketplace.
MARKET ACTION: U.S. stocks gained broadly, led by a surge in health-care stocks.
The Dow's pharmaceutical components strengthened, as drug makers are expected to profit from the expansion of health-care coverage. Merck rose 2.3%, while Pfizer climbed 1.5%.
Hospital operator Tenet Healthcare rose 6.1%, while insurer Cigna gained 1.9% and Express Scripts, a pharmacy benefit manager, rose 2.1%. Pharmaceutical companies also climbed, with Eli Lilly up 1.3% and Bristol-Myers Squibb up 0.6%.
WINNERS & LOSERS: Health-care providers, drug companies and device makers are expected to see a neutral or even a positive impact from the legislation. Hospitals, clinical laboratories and pharmaceutical companies will see a deluge of new customers and could potentially benefit if millions of more Americans are insured.
The outlook may not be so rosy for insurers. Though they will gain enrollees, they also face a raft of new regulations that would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions -- and limit their ability to differentiate insurance premiums based on a customer's age and other factors.
Also, Medicare providers will face both cuts and new regulatory restrictions.
Business groups have lambasted the legislation, saying the requirement to provide health coverage would be an impediment for future hiring.
NEW TAXES, COSTS: The health-care overhaul bill will be paid for by nearly $ 438 billion in new taxes and fees on high-income Americans, drug and medical device makers and health insurers.
High-income earners will face a 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income, a 0.9% surtax on earned income, higher Medicare taxes and a 40% excise tax on generous health-care plans, dubbed "Cadillac plans."
A tax on medical devices manufacturers was reduced to 2.3%, but will apply to a broader range of devices.
Pharmaceutical companies would face $28 billion in fees over the next ten years and would have to provide deep discounts on prescriptions filled in the Medicare Part D program.
STUDENT LOAN CHANGES: The health-care bill included a major shake-up of the student loan industry Sunday, ending most private banks' ability to originate lending in the market. Ending such origination fees will save the taxpayers an estimated $68 billion over 10 years. However, private banks still can earn money servicing student loans.
WHAT THEY SAID:
"There're a lot of people who were uninsured, who will start behaving differently in an environment where they will go to the doctor, get lab tests and take prescription drugs," says Derek Taner, a lead manager of the AIM Global Health Care Fund.
"We will have an effort to repeal the bill" House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R, Ohio) told NBC's "Meet The Press," on what the Republicans will do if they retake the House in the fall elections. "I'd have a bill on the floor the first thing out, to eliminate the Medicare cuts, eliminate the tax increases, eliminate the mandate that every American has to buy health insurance, and the employer mandate that's going to kill jobs," he said
"I look forward to the campaign in November . . . and I very much look forward to the Republican Party running on a platform of repealing this bill,"" Rep. Tim Ryan (D., Ohio)
"It even puts new taxes on medical devices like wheelchairs, oxygen and pacemakers and incredibly, on drugs used to treat cancer and heart disease," Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas) said.
"I was unable to find anything in there that would cause me to have anxiety if I were a shareholder in a pharmaceutical company," said Ira Loss, a senior health-care analyst at the research firm Washington Analysis.
Sanofi-Aventis SA (SNY) Chief Executive Christopher Viehbacher said in an interview that the impact of the legislation will be neutral to slightly negative "but better for the industry than if healthcare reform didn't pass."
"I don't think the market was surprised by the passage, and we should remember that when the Senate passed their bill on Christmas Eve, the market held up fine," said Mike O'Rourke, chief market strategist at BTIG, an institutional broker.
Dow Jones Newswires coverage includes:
US House Approves Historic Overhaul of Health Care System
US House Clears Major Student Loan Revamp
Summary of Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act
US House Health Bill Taxes Drug, Device Makers And The Rich
Pharma Industry Dodges Threats In Health Care Bill
BIG PICTURE: Finally--Hope for Controlling Health Costs
WSJ(3/22) Now, The Campaigning Begins
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
03-22-101132ET
Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
The Wall Street Journal
THE NEWS: Health-care stocks led the stock market higher Monday after the U.S. House Sunday approved a historic health-care overhaul designed to bring health insurance to 32 million more Americas while subjecting U.S. industries to a dramatically redrawn and newly regulated marketplace.
MARKET ACTION: U.S. stocks gained broadly, led by a surge in health-care stocks.
The Dow's pharmaceutical components strengthened, as drug makers are expected to profit from the expansion of health-care coverage. Merck rose 2.3%, while Pfizer climbed 1.5%.
Hospital operator Tenet Healthcare rose 6.1%, while insurer Cigna gained 1.9% and Express Scripts, a pharmacy benefit manager, rose 2.1%. Pharmaceutical companies also climbed, with Eli Lilly up 1.3% and Bristol-Myers Squibb up 0.6%.
WINNERS & LOSERS: Health-care providers, drug companies and device makers are expected to see a neutral or even a positive impact from the legislation. Hospitals, clinical laboratories and pharmaceutical companies will see a deluge of new customers and could potentially benefit if millions of more Americans are insured.
The outlook may not be so rosy for insurers. Though they will gain enrollees, they also face a raft of new regulations that would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions -- and limit their ability to differentiate insurance premiums based on a customer's age and other factors.
Also, Medicare providers will face both cuts and new regulatory restrictions.
Business groups have lambasted the legislation, saying the requirement to provide health coverage would be an impediment for future hiring.
NEW TAXES, COSTS: The health-care overhaul bill will be paid for by nearly $ 438 billion in new taxes and fees on high-income Americans, drug and medical device makers and health insurers.
High-income earners will face a 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income, a 0.9% surtax on earned income, higher Medicare taxes and a 40% excise tax on generous health-care plans, dubbed "Cadillac plans."
A tax on medical devices manufacturers was reduced to 2.3%, but will apply to a broader range of devices.
Pharmaceutical companies would face $28 billion in fees over the next ten years and would have to provide deep discounts on prescriptions filled in the Medicare Part D program.
STUDENT LOAN CHANGES: The health-care bill included a major shake-up of the student loan industry Sunday, ending most private banks' ability to originate lending in the market. Ending such origination fees will save the taxpayers an estimated $68 billion over 10 years. However, private banks still can earn money servicing student loans.
WHAT THEY SAID:
"There're a lot of people who were uninsured, who will start behaving differently in an environment where they will go to the doctor, get lab tests and take prescription drugs," says Derek Taner, a lead manager of the AIM Global Health Care Fund.
"We will have an effort to repeal the bill" House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R, Ohio) told NBC's "Meet The Press," on what the Republicans will do if they retake the House in the fall elections. "I'd have a bill on the floor the first thing out, to eliminate the Medicare cuts, eliminate the tax increases, eliminate the mandate that every American has to buy health insurance, and the employer mandate that's going to kill jobs," he said
"I look forward to the campaign in November . . . and I very much look forward to the Republican Party running on a platform of repealing this bill,"" Rep. Tim Ryan (D., Ohio)
"It even puts new taxes on medical devices like wheelchairs, oxygen and pacemakers and incredibly, on drugs used to treat cancer and heart disease," Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas) said.
"I was unable to find anything in there that would cause me to have anxiety if I were a shareholder in a pharmaceutical company," said Ira Loss, a senior health-care analyst at the research firm Washington Analysis.
Sanofi-Aventis SA (SNY) Chief Executive Christopher Viehbacher said in an interview that the impact of the legislation will be neutral to slightly negative "but better for the industry than if healthcare reform didn't pass."
"I don't think the market was surprised by the passage, and we should remember that when the Senate passed their bill on Christmas Eve, the market held up fine," said Mike O'Rourke, chief market strategist at BTIG, an institutional broker.
Dow Jones Newswires coverage includes:
US House Approves Historic Overhaul of Health Care System
US House Clears Major Student Loan Revamp
Summary of Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act
US House Health Bill Taxes Drug, Device Makers And The Rich
Pharma Industry Dodges Threats In Health Care Bill
BIG PICTURE: Finally--Hope for Controlling Health Costs
WSJ(3/22) Now, The Campaigning Begins
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
03-22-101132ET
Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
The Wall Street Journal
Internet usage overtakes television watching: Report
For the first time ever, Canadians are spending more time online than they are watching television, according to a new report.
The survey, conducted by Ipsos Reid last fall found that Canadians are spending more than 18 hours a week online, compared to 16.9 hours watching television.
Interestingly, Internet usage and the number of hours watching television have both experienced a rise since last year. Web surfing is up from 14.9 hours last year and television watching rose to 15.8 hours.
Other media, such as newspapers, radio and magazines have all remained relatively stable in the last year.
The survey also found that the age gap in Internet usage is narrowing. On average, 18-34 year olds are spending 20 hours a week online, compared to 18 hours for those over the age of 35.
"In previous years we've seen significant differences between the generations and the amount of time they spend online," said study author Mark Laver in a release. "The data indicates that not only are people of all ages spending more and more time online, but it also points to a shift in how online Canadians are consuming media and where they are spending their free time."
Television, however shows a significant gap. Canadian adults aged 55 and over watch significantly more television — 20 hours per week compared to 15 hours for those aged 35-54 and 13 hours for those aged 18-34.
Ipsos Reid surveyed 839 Canadian adults and has an estimated margin of error of +/- 3.38 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The survey, conducted by Ipsos Reid last fall found that Canadians are spending more than 18 hours a week online, compared to 16.9 hours watching television.
Interestingly, Internet usage and the number of hours watching television have both experienced a rise since last year. Web surfing is up from 14.9 hours last year and television watching rose to 15.8 hours.
Other media, such as newspapers, radio and magazines have all remained relatively stable in the last year.
The survey also found that the age gap in Internet usage is narrowing. On average, 18-34 year olds are spending 20 hours a week online, compared to 18 hours for those over the age of 35.
"In previous years we've seen significant differences between the generations and the amount of time they spend online," said study author Mark Laver in a release. "The data indicates that not only are people of all ages spending more and more time online, but it also points to a shift in how online Canadians are consuming media and where they are spending their free time."
Television, however shows a significant gap. Canadian adults aged 55 and over watch significantly more television — 20 hours per week compared to 15 hours for those aged 35-54 and 13 hours for those aged 18-34.
Ipsos Reid surveyed 839 Canadian adults and has an estimated margin of error of +/- 3.38 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Why does the U.S. Healthcare Bill remind me of Logan’s Run?
Make it Eight, eh?
March 22, 2010
Don’t be fooled…the U.S. healthcare bill, if made law will end up killing more people than it will save.
It won’t matter if pre-exisiting conditions are covered when the limits are so low, the sick will be dead long before they become a burden on the system…..the only “pro choice” inclusion is the ability to choose death (by abortion).
It’s 1976 - are you old enough to remember seeing the movie, Logan’s Run?
It was a long time ago, but it was enough of a memorable movie to have impacted enough of us. So much so, that a modern remake is in the works (Logan’s Run 2012). A twist of fate that the year of the remake is 2012? The limits on care remind me of the movie, where you are given only a small window to life.
The proposed U.S. Healthcare Bill apparently slashes $500 Billion from Medicare for the elderly. It also increases taxes by $500 Billion. Apparently it adds 32 million individual health care recipients to the numbers.
While President Obama stresses what should be a good point – that people who were refused care because of pre-existing conditions before, cannot be denied coverage now – the overall picture does not add up. Those in need will not be given extra consideration for the much greater annual costs of treatment. It is therefore a dummy benefit. Sounds good, but the reality will be far different.
I have been a life and benefits insurance broker, in Canada for the past 22 years. I analyze need and match product for a living. The long and the short of it is the insurance industry in Canada is guilty of “product pushing” at the expense of what sometimes makes sense.
Where this becomes most evident is in medical and dental coverage that is sold individually. While hospital and doctor visits are covered by the government, medical (drugs) and dental are not.
Often, people without coverage will go looking for private coverage not heeding the economics of it, or if it is truly going to benefit them if a costly medical tragedy should strike.
The premiums are high relative to the risk to the insurer. The result – high insurer profits and low insurer risk. Statistically speaking, only a small percentage of the people will need coverage, and the limits are low enough to not make an impact on the health or finances of the insured!
And, in Ontario, for drug coverage, we have a form of welfare drug coverage known as the Trillium Drug Program. In short, if you develop a medical condition that would financially cripple you, the government would step in, and you would only have to pay a small portion of cost geared to income.
It’s interesting that Obama mentions the Canadian Healthcare System as he discusses the “process” that the U.S. healthcare system will undergo, in stages to get to the type of system we have in Canada.
I would argue Canada is getting a bad rap in some media – our program makes a lot more sense than the “startup” plan the U.S. is trying to ram through Congress and the Senate. Rightly so, no Republican in their right mind would vote for this plan.
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*
The reason is simple in my mind. Insurance is the same no matter what the type. It is designed to cover the few that are left with a huge problem. The U.S. plan is not meeting that basic insurance need. Let me explain.
High premiums and taxes; low risk and per patient benefit….Catastrophic insurance protection is missing!
The Medicare system will be hit with cutbacks. The seniors are the group that will be hardest hit because they are the ones in the greatest risk of health issues.
The inclusion of “death panels” that will effectively decide a patient’s health funding are an excuse to literally pull the plug on grandma. Is it suggesting older people are not worth it? Have they outlived their usefulness as might have been described by Bernard Shaw? Didn’t he say if you cannot work, you cannot be of much use? What happened to honouring those that have paid their dues? No, it would seem the greatest savings to the healthcare system and the insurance companies come in the form of stripping those in need from the coverage.
I humbly suggest that the primary purpose of this system change is to cut cost by imposing life and death decisions that families will no longer have at their discretion. This is not the case in Canada. You are given healthcare for as long as you want – there is no death panel nor should there be.
In Logan’s Run, you were allowed to live it up until the ripe age of 30, and then had to be blown up in a ceremony of life called “Carousel”. You see, there were not enough jobs to sustain the economy and the people. Similar to eugenics that protect the earth, suggesting there are about 2 billion people too many now, this is eerily similar to the global mission of today. How is that job growth working in the European Union and the U.S. these days?
In Logan’s Run, those that did not want to accept their fate were known as “runners”. Today, I think they are known as Patriots or Tea Partiers.
The U.S. healthcare reform reminds me of this scenario – there is a proposed lack of choice. The people have lesser and lesser rights. And what do you suppose will happen to grandma if and when the health spending budget gets tight and funds get shorter? How will the aged and the sick fair? Not well I would assume. And the insurance companies profit margins will grow at the expense of life and the people. For shame indeed.
People will also not be given a choice who their physician will be, and be limited to 8 doctor visits a year. And, they would be limited to $10, 000 in hospital treatment a year. If premiums are based on this model, the insurance companies will do very well indeed – most people will never need the $10,000, but the premiums will still be collected, won’t they? But, the people who truly need the coverage will suffer tremendously once the limit is reached. And, from what I understand, $10,000 does not go far in U.S. hospitals. Here is a report from Tenessee, where the $10,000 state cap will stay unchanged:
Remaining, for now, however, is the most controversial measure: a $10,000 annual cap on hospital stay per enrollee – although the state is now proposing both an exception for transplant patients and a cap on the number of days rather than dollars that state officials say will likely stand at seven.
Again, the government will add a tax disguised in the health premium, and the government and the insurers will be the winners. The at risk per patient amount is controllable as the government will establish health panels to decide if chronic and terminal health issues are “worth” funding. Is it a wonder the insurance companies stock prices soared?
So what if Obama says there is no lifetime maximum – it is a bastardized, empty promise. At the rate the system will be denying coverage, people will die much before they would otherwise collect on their “so-called lifetime maximum”. Welcome to “Carousel” indeed.
Who stands to gain? When this bill was introduced the insurance companies stocks all rose. It is them that will gain. The losers will be those that need it – the sick and the elderly.
To compare the U.S. thrust to “universal healthcare” should not be confused by the Canadian model.
In Canada, at least currently, we do not tell people who their doctor can be, and we do not limit care.
The elderly still have value, and it had better not change any time soon.
If you live in the U.S., fight this will every ounce of your being.
Incidentally, those in Logan’s Run who were “Runners” were looking to break out of the dome and find a place called “Sanctuary” ( the place untouched by government control and corruption). Can we think of ”Sanctuary” as any State that will stand up and not succumb to the imposing powers of the Federal Government? And, can we assume too that those “Runners” who are caught may end up in a FEMA camp of sorts?
We must all stand up for the right to our own sanctuary, wouldn’t you agree? Freedom to make choices.
And finally, it is odd that President Obama would be “pro choice”only when it results in more death; namely babies by abortion. Food for thought indeed.
March 22, 2010
Don’t be fooled…the U.S. healthcare bill, if made law will end up killing more people than it will save.
It won’t matter if pre-exisiting conditions are covered when the limits are so low, the sick will be dead long before they become a burden on the system…..the only “pro choice” inclusion is the ability to choose death (by abortion).
It’s 1976 - are you old enough to remember seeing the movie, Logan’s Run?
It was a long time ago, but it was enough of a memorable movie to have impacted enough of us. So much so, that a modern remake is in the works (Logan’s Run 2012). A twist of fate that the year of the remake is 2012? The limits on care remind me of the movie, where you are given only a small window to life.
The proposed U.S. Healthcare Bill apparently slashes $500 Billion from Medicare for the elderly. It also increases taxes by $500 Billion. Apparently it adds 32 million individual health care recipients to the numbers.
While President Obama stresses what should be a good point – that people who were refused care because of pre-existing conditions before, cannot be denied coverage now – the overall picture does not add up. Those in need will not be given extra consideration for the much greater annual costs of treatment. It is therefore a dummy benefit. Sounds good, but the reality will be far different.
I have been a life and benefits insurance broker, in Canada for the past 22 years. I analyze need and match product for a living. The long and the short of it is the insurance industry in Canada is guilty of “product pushing” at the expense of what sometimes makes sense.
Where this becomes most evident is in medical and dental coverage that is sold individually. While hospital and doctor visits are covered by the government, medical (drugs) and dental are not.
Often, people without coverage will go looking for private coverage not heeding the economics of it, or if it is truly going to benefit them if a costly medical tragedy should strike.
The premiums are high relative to the risk to the insurer. The result – high insurer profits and low insurer risk. Statistically speaking, only a small percentage of the people will need coverage, and the limits are low enough to not make an impact on the health or finances of the insured!
And, in Ontario, for drug coverage, we have a form of welfare drug coverage known as the Trillium Drug Program. In short, if you develop a medical condition that would financially cripple you, the government would step in, and you would only have to pay a small portion of cost geared to income.
It’s interesting that Obama mentions the Canadian Healthcare System as he discusses the “process” that the U.S. healthcare system will undergo, in stages to get to the type of system we have in Canada.
I would argue Canada is getting a bad rap in some media – our program makes a lot more sense than the “startup” plan the U.S. is trying to ram through Congress and the Senate. Rightly so, no Republican in their right mind would vote for this plan.
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*
The reason is simple in my mind. Insurance is the same no matter what the type. It is designed to cover the few that are left with a huge problem. The U.S. plan is not meeting that basic insurance need. Let me explain.
High premiums and taxes; low risk and per patient benefit….Catastrophic insurance protection is missing!
The Medicare system will be hit with cutbacks. The seniors are the group that will be hardest hit because they are the ones in the greatest risk of health issues.
The inclusion of “death panels” that will effectively decide a patient’s health funding are an excuse to literally pull the plug on grandma. Is it suggesting older people are not worth it? Have they outlived their usefulness as might have been described by Bernard Shaw? Didn’t he say if you cannot work, you cannot be of much use? What happened to honouring those that have paid their dues? No, it would seem the greatest savings to the healthcare system and the insurance companies come in the form of stripping those in need from the coverage.
I humbly suggest that the primary purpose of this system change is to cut cost by imposing life and death decisions that families will no longer have at their discretion. This is not the case in Canada. You are given healthcare for as long as you want – there is no death panel nor should there be.
In Logan’s Run, you were allowed to live it up until the ripe age of 30, and then had to be blown up in a ceremony of life called “Carousel”. You see, there were not enough jobs to sustain the economy and the people. Similar to eugenics that protect the earth, suggesting there are about 2 billion people too many now, this is eerily similar to the global mission of today. How is that job growth working in the European Union and the U.S. these days?
In Logan’s Run, those that did not want to accept their fate were known as “runners”. Today, I think they are known as Patriots or Tea Partiers.
The U.S. healthcare reform reminds me of this scenario – there is a proposed lack of choice. The people have lesser and lesser rights. And what do you suppose will happen to grandma if and when the health spending budget gets tight and funds get shorter? How will the aged and the sick fair? Not well I would assume. And the insurance companies profit margins will grow at the expense of life and the people. For shame indeed.
People will also not be given a choice who their physician will be, and be limited to 8 doctor visits a year. And, they would be limited to $10, 000 in hospital treatment a year. If premiums are based on this model, the insurance companies will do very well indeed – most people will never need the $10,000, but the premiums will still be collected, won’t they? But, the people who truly need the coverage will suffer tremendously once the limit is reached. And, from what I understand, $10,000 does not go far in U.S. hospitals. Here is a report from Tenessee, where the $10,000 state cap will stay unchanged:
Remaining, for now, however, is the most controversial measure: a $10,000 annual cap on hospital stay per enrollee – although the state is now proposing both an exception for transplant patients and a cap on the number of days rather than dollars that state officials say will likely stand at seven.
Again, the government will add a tax disguised in the health premium, and the government and the insurers will be the winners. The at risk per patient amount is controllable as the government will establish health panels to decide if chronic and terminal health issues are “worth” funding. Is it a wonder the insurance companies stock prices soared?
So what if Obama says there is no lifetime maximum – it is a bastardized, empty promise. At the rate the system will be denying coverage, people will die much before they would otherwise collect on their “so-called lifetime maximum”. Welcome to “Carousel” indeed.
Who stands to gain? When this bill was introduced the insurance companies stocks all rose. It is them that will gain. The losers will be those that need it – the sick and the elderly.
To compare the U.S. thrust to “universal healthcare” should not be confused by the Canadian model.
In Canada, at least currently, we do not tell people who their doctor can be, and we do not limit care.
The elderly still have value, and it had better not change any time soon.
If you live in the U.S., fight this will every ounce of your being.
Incidentally, those in Logan’s Run who were “Runners” were looking to break out of the dome and find a place called “Sanctuary” ( the place untouched by government control and corruption). Can we think of ”Sanctuary” as any State that will stand up and not succumb to the imposing powers of the Federal Government? And, can we assume too that those “Runners” who are caught may end up in a FEMA camp of sorts?
We must all stand up for the right to our own sanctuary, wouldn’t you agree? Freedom to make choices.
And finally, it is odd that President Obama would be “pro choice”only when it results in more death; namely babies by abortion. Food for thought indeed.
Underemployment At Record 20% According To Gallup
Underemployment At Record 20% According To Gallup
Tyler Durden's picture
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/22/2010 09:04 -0500
* Gallup
* Morgan Stanley
* recovery
* Unemployment
Just in case anyone needed confirmation that the DOL data is just a little, how should we say it, cooked, here comes Gallup with their March 15 undermployment number, which just hit a 2010, and series, high of 20%. This is obviously worse compared to both the beginning of the year (19.5%) and February (19.8%). Unlike the Dept of Labor's arcane voodoo which lately is based more on executive confidential memos and snowfall observations, Gallup's underemployment measure is based on more than 20,000 phone interviews collected over a 30-day period and reported daily. Furthermore "Gallup's results are not seasonally adjusted and tend to be a precursor of government reports by approximately two weeks." We wonder if the abnormally hot March weather will used as an excuse for a deterioraiton in the most recent NFP numbers.
A summary of underemployment trends as per Gallup:
A profiling of the two components of the Underemployment index indicate that while Gallup's unemployment rate declined marginally from February and was at 10.3%, the percentage of those emplpoyed part time and seeking full time work surged to 9.7%.
Here is how Gallup interprets this data:
Focus on Underemployment, Not Unemployment
Even with historic healthcare legislation under consideration, Congress passed and the president signed a new jobs creation bill on March 18. No doubt, national attention will shortly shift to unemployment and anticipation of the government's April 2 report of the March unemployment rate. In this regard, Gallup's mid-March unemployment rate is likely indicative of the not-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate the government will release in April, as is Gallup's broader underemployment rate.
The danger associated with focusing on unemployment is reflected by the recent statement of Morgan Stanley economists suggesting that the U.S. may add as many as 300,000 jobs in March owing to an improvement in the weather, economic growth, and the government's hiring of temporary census workers. If anything close to this number of new jobs is announced by the government in early April, there is likely to be an enthusiastic, possibly even celebratory, response. Government officials are liable to tout the continued benefits of last year's stimulus and the future benefits of the new jobs bill. Many Wall Streeters will likely argue that the surge in jobs is simply another confirmation of the strength of the overall economic recovery.
However, before policymakers celebrate too much, they should note Gallup's recent findings involving its new, more inclusive measure of underemployment. To be sure, there are some benefits associated with the unemployed getting part-time jobs, no matter the source. For example, Gallup's self-reported spending data show that part-time workers who want full-time work spent on average 24% more per day ($51) during the past 30 days than did the unemployed ($41). While this represents an improvement and is good for the economy, it is not nearly as good as the 85% higher daily spending of those having full-time jobs ($76).
It is also often suggested that a growth in part-time jobs may indicate future growth in full-time work -- that companies hire part-time workers before committing to hiring new full-time employees. While this is sometimes the case, it may not be so at this point in the U.S. economy: Gallup data show that one in three part-time employees who are wanting full-time work are currently "hopeful" about finding a full-time job in the next 30 days -- not much of an endorsement of the idea that today's new part-time work will progress to full-time jobs.
Regardless of how one interprets the shifts taking place between part-time and full-time jobs, it is important that policymakers focus on the broader goal of reducing underemployment, not just unemployment. Part-time, temporary jobs like those associated with census-taking are far better than no job and may reduce the unemployment rate, but they do not represent the kind of job creation needed for a sustainable economic recovery.
Tyler Durden's picture
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/22/2010 09:04 -0500
* Gallup
* Morgan Stanley
* recovery
* Unemployment
Just in case anyone needed confirmation that the DOL data is just a little, how should we say it, cooked, here comes Gallup with their March 15 undermployment number, which just hit a 2010, and series, high of 20%. This is obviously worse compared to both the beginning of the year (19.5%) and February (19.8%). Unlike the Dept of Labor's arcane voodoo which lately is based more on executive confidential memos and snowfall observations, Gallup's underemployment measure is based on more than 20,000 phone interviews collected over a 30-day period and reported daily. Furthermore "Gallup's results are not seasonally adjusted and tend to be a precursor of government reports by approximately two weeks." We wonder if the abnormally hot March weather will used as an excuse for a deterioraiton in the most recent NFP numbers.
A summary of underemployment trends as per Gallup:
A profiling of the two components of the Underemployment index indicate that while Gallup's unemployment rate declined marginally from February and was at 10.3%, the percentage of those emplpoyed part time and seeking full time work surged to 9.7%.
Here is how Gallup interprets this data:
Focus on Underemployment, Not Unemployment
Even with historic healthcare legislation under consideration, Congress passed and the president signed a new jobs creation bill on March 18. No doubt, national attention will shortly shift to unemployment and anticipation of the government's April 2 report of the March unemployment rate. In this regard, Gallup's mid-March unemployment rate is likely indicative of the not-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate the government will release in April, as is Gallup's broader underemployment rate.
The danger associated with focusing on unemployment is reflected by the recent statement of Morgan Stanley economists suggesting that the U.S. may add as many as 300,000 jobs in March owing to an improvement in the weather, economic growth, and the government's hiring of temporary census workers. If anything close to this number of new jobs is announced by the government in early April, there is likely to be an enthusiastic, possibly even celebratory, response. Government officials are liable to tout the continued benefits of last year's stimulus and the future benefits of the new jobs bill. Many Wall Streeters will likely argue that the surge in jobs is simply another confirmation of the strength of the overall economic recovery.
However, before policymakers celebrate too much, they should note Gallup's recent findings involving its new, more inclusive measure of underemployment. To be sure, there are some benefits associated with the unemployed getting part-time jobs, no matter the source. For example, Gallup's self-reported spending data show that part-time workers who want full-time work spent on average 24% more per day ($51) during the past 30 days than did the unemployed ($41). While this represents an improvement and is good for the economy, it is not nearly as good as the 85% higher daily spending of those having full-time jobs ($76).
It is also often suggested that a growth in part-time jobs may indicate future growth in full-time work -- that companies hire part-time workers before committing to hiring new full-time employees. While this is sometimes the case, it may not be so at this point in the U.S. economy: Gallup data show that one in three part-time employees who are wanting full-time work are currently "hopeful" about finding a full-time job in the next 30 days -- not much of an endorsement of the idea that today's new part-time work will progress to full-time jobs.
Regardless of how one interprets the shifts taking place between part-time and full-time jobs, it is important that policymakers focus on the broader goal of reducing underemployment, not just unemployment. Part-time, temporary jobs like those associated with census-taking are far better than no job and may reduce the unemployment rate, but they do not represent the kind of job creation needed for a sustainable economic recovery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)