FOXNews.com - Republicans Gird for Democrats' End Run on Health Care

FOXNews.com - Republicans Gird for Democrats' End Run on Health Care

Posted using ShareThis

Lemmings by Ira Schwartz

Well the healthcare “summit” is over and between you and me I probably could have found a better use for my time then sitting in front of my TV and watching it. However we did learn several things from this media event. The Republicans are not dead but are rather quite alive and feisty and despite what President Obama has said he has no interest what so ever in working with the Republicans on healthcare. Watching the President yesterday was like watching a spoiled brat who owned the only baseball telling the rest of the kids you either play by my rules or you don’t play at all.

I was surprised to hear him admit that the American people were angry at Washington but then I realized he might have said it but clearly didn’t believe it. This point was driven home later when the President told the Republicans and I’m paraphrasing, that they had six weeks to get on board or the Democrats will pass the bill without them. The dreaded reconciliation. Though the bill would probably pass the Senate most analysts believe it will not get out of the House. His flippant remark regarding the elections in November, “Whatever happens in November happens in November” (paraphrasing again) shows how really out of touch this administration really is. One of the Democrats even had the audacity to say that they (Democrats) have been doing this a long time and they know what we’re doing. Well a new Rasmussen poll indicates 56% of the population disagrees.

Now that the debate is over we need to put this all in perspective. Everyone agrees that insurance companies must not be allowed to continue doing business as usual. Regulations need to be put in place to prevent things like the 39% rate increase Anthem Blue Cross of California just inflicted on its policy holders. Both the federal government and the California Insurance commissioner have asked Anthem to explain the increase. As of today they have yet to answer. Things like this cannot be allowed to continue. The Insurance companies need to be reigned in and made accountable for their actions. They have made huge profits on the backs of their policy holders and healthcare providers and still scream poverty. California State Attorney General, Jerry Brown, subpoenaed yesterday, the financial records for the seven largest health insurance companies doing business in California. They have 30 days to comply. It appears at least one state is looking out for its citizens.

Our present healthcare system is one of the best in the world. Better equipment has lead to early detection of most deadly diseases. Early detection means a better chance of survival. Access to this early detection and treatment is possible only because of our present healthcare system. And it appears most of us are happy with our present plans.

A recent gallop poll indicates that 87% of Americans with health insurance are happy with their plans. 82% of people on Medicare and Medicaid also say their healthcare coverage is good to excellent. According to CNN 15% of all Americans, roughly 45 million presently don’t have any health insurance. That’s 1 in 8 Americans. According to the US Census Bureau of those 45 million 9.7 million are not citizens of the United States. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) reports another 14 million are insurable through Medicare and SCHIP but didn’t bother to enroll. The Census also shows 18.3 million are under the age of 34 and most of that number feels they don’t need or want health insurance. So when all is said and done it is estimated that only 8.3 million Americans are too poor to afford health coverage.

So it appears the real problem isn’t getting insurance that is good, the problem is getting good insurance that is affordable. As I said our healthcare system is one of the best in the world and doesn’t need massive restructuring to make it work better. All it needs is a major “tweaking” and rules to make sure the rights of those of us who have policies are protected. If the Democrats would simply open their eyes and ears and look and listen to what the people are saying they would know that too. If they continue on this path of government run health insurance they will all, like lemmings, follow each other off the cliff.

So I guess when you look at it the Democrats really don’t know what they’re talking about.

The figures in this article were obtained from “The Myth of the 46 Million” by Philip Klein

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/20/the-myth-of-the-46-million

© 2010 by Ira Schwartz. Used with permission. All Rights Reserved.

Why Dems' Health Care Bill is Stalled

This is a great article on Real Clear Politics today. Check it out.


Why Dems' Health Care Bill is Stalled

"History 101" by Ira Schwartz

George Santayana, Spanish born American Philosopher, Poet and Humorist said, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” This is a quote I’ve used before. Usually I don’t like to repeat myself but after today’s news story regarding Afghani President Karzai I feel I must.

History is a funny thing; it displays the crowning successes and the devastating failures in plain language for all to see. However failure and success is a subjective thing depending on which side of the fence you are sitting. The battle at Little Big Horn was a disaster for the U.S. Cavalry, not to mention George Armstrong Custer, but a glorious success for the American Indians, at least temporarily. If history teaches us anything it teaches us that glorious success are fleeting but crushing defeats last forever.

If we look back at world history we discover a chilling fact. All governments, no matter what form they take, are notoriously short sighted. They make policy based on what’s happening in the world at that moment never thinking of the effect it will have ten, twenty or one hundred years down the road. As a result, in the last century alone, murderous villains like Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were allowed to not only grab power but to keep it for years. Not only that we actually at one time supported the likes of Hussein and Bin Laden as well as the Shah of Iran. I know I left out the brain dead Abmadinejad and that nut job in North Korea, Il-Sung but I only have so much room and the list just seems to go on forever.

It appears George W. Bush and Barrack H. Obama are a little weak with their history. If they both had been better students a criminal like Hamid Karzai might never have illegally won the Afghani Presidency or gotten US support.

Tuesday President Karzai passed a law removing UN observers from his countries Electoral Watchdog Committee. These observers were placed there to review any anomalies during Afghani elections. In other words their job was to detect fraud.

Karzai spokesman Siamak Herawi said, “The Afghan government for long has wanted to 'Afghanise' the electoral process and 10 days ago, the cabinet ratified the amendment and the president endorsed it." He continued to say that parliament could not overturn the law, since Karzai had signed it into effect when the legislature was in recess. Well at least Karzai has learned one thing from the Obama Administration; if you want to pass an unpopular bill do it when no one is around to vote against it. The fact that parliamentary elections are in 6 months casts further suspicion on the move.

This is not the first time the Karzai government has been linked to corruption. Voter fraud was discovered in the first Presidential election that Karzai won and his brothers, Mahmoud and Amid Wali are suspected of running the country’s 3 Billion dollar opium trade. The Obama administration has become so frustrated with him President Obama, in a phone call on November 2nd to the newly re-elected president made his displeasure crystal clear. Clean up your administration or else. Kind of funny it’s almost like the pot calling the kettle black.

Fox News reported that an official with access to Karzai’s inner circle said, "The US administration warned that if he doesn't meet the conditions within six months, Obama has told him America will pull out. Obama said they don't want their soldiers' lives wasted for nothing. They want changes in Cabinet and changes in his personal staff." That was almost four months ago.

NPR reports that nearly a third of Afghans say they have personally experienced corruption when trying to obtain an official government document, according to a large-scale survey of the Afghan people conducted by the Asia Foundation.

"The people have lost complete confidence in their government, which wasn't the case before," says Nipa Banerjee, who ran the Afghan aid program for the Canadian International Development Agency from 2003 to 2006. "The legitimacy of the government is very much at stake."

More than a quarter of Afghans told the Asia Foundation's pollsters that they have seen corruption firsthand when dealing with Afghan courts and judges.

"In many areas, it's at the point where people don't even go to the formal justice system," says Masood Karokhail, deputy director of the Tribal Liaison Office, a private Afghan group that works on local governance issues. "The majority of people don't think there is justice in Afghanistan now."

So what can the U.S. government do? Nothing…and Karzai knows it. He will continue to do what he wants as long as NATO troops are there to protect him. Karzai and his family will grow richer as his people grow poorer and the opium trade will flourish, financed by American dollars.

American history is full of short sighted political decisions that eventually come back to bite us in the posterior. You would have thought we’d know better by now. The world has become a very dangerous place and the United States must take some of the blame for that. The big question is….What do we do next? Maybe our leaders should be required to take a history course before they are allowed to take office. I suggest History 101.

© 2010 by Ira Schwartz. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

Obama's Failing Approval Rating by Craig Covello

You may remember that on January 3, this website reported the presidents approval index. The index represents the percentage of people who strongly approve of the president's performance minus the percentage of people who strongly disapprove. At the beginning of the year, the presidents approval index was in the red with a rating of -15. Just yesterday, Rasmussen reported that Obama's presidential approval has sunk to -19. It appears that this abysmal rating is directly related to America's concerns over jobs and healthcare, based upon the following statistics:

Only 33% of those surveyed think that decisions made by the government will benefit business and the economy. The majority believe that those decisions are best left to business leaders in the private sector.

Only 39% of voters nationwide favor the health care plan proposed by the Democrats.

Only 35% believe that Congress should pass health care reform before the upcoming midterm elections.

A full 78% believe that the proposed healthcare plan will cost more than projected, will increase the federal deficit and will put more taxes on middle-class Americans.

A majority of those surveyed also fear that they will be forced to change their health insurance coverage if this legislation passes.

You would think that Obama would look at these numbers and adjust the agenda of his presidency accordingly, just as Bill Clinton did during his own presidency. Well, our current president is not adjusting his agenda. In fact, he's now doubling down on it.

Today, Obama will propose the creation of yet another regulatory agency called the Health Insurance Rate Authority. Its purpose will be to review and block what it terms as excessive rate increases in health insurance industry based upon "current market conditions". This plan presupposes that enabling free-market forces will not provide the necessary checks and balances related to price. No, according to Obama this must be controlled by a centralized authority that knows what's best for consumers. The framework around this idea is based upon legislation proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and is part of a larger resurrection of the failed Democratic health care legislation. This proposal continues to push for creation of government insurance plans, a.k.a. "the public option", as well as forcing all Americans to buy health insurance, regardless of whether they want it based upon their individual circumstance.

You may recall in Obama's State of the Union address that jobs had become the number one priority of his administration. Healthcare insurance reform wasn't even mentioned until 30 minutes into his speech, and then was given only limited mention. Many of us wanted to believe that Obama was going to focus his attention on the economy, but since then the administration has admitted that high unemployment numbers are to be expected throughout the remainder of Obama's term. Four weeks after his speech, the focus again is on healthcare.

And now it appears that the White House supports implementation of healthcare legislation using reconciliation or as some have called it "the nuclear option". This process would require only 51 votes instead of the normal 60 votes required under Senate rules. Reconciliation was introduced in 1974 in order to limit debate over adjusting specific dollar amounts in the federal budget. It was never intended to be used as a vehicle for forcing new legislation. This is clearly an abuse of power designed not only to bypass Republican senators but also the handful of Democratic senators who are similarly opposed to the proposed healthcare legislation. And of course, ultimately it's designed to bypass the will of the American people.

Apparently, Obama pays little attention to the will of American people, or to Rasmussen for that matter. If he did, perhaps he would not have a presidential approval index of -19.

More information can be found at:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/health/policy/22health.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/obama-proposal-have-federal-government-block-health-insurance-rate-hikes

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/breaking-reid-signals-support-for-reconciliation-vote-on-public-option/

http://keithhennessey.com/2009/08/05/what-is-reconciliation/

Copyright 2010 by Craig Covello.  All rights reserved.  Used with Permission

Now More Than Ever

My friend Al Ramirez is running for Senate against Barbara Boxer.  I am supporting Al because I believe that he has the correct ideas to help the nation and stop the partisan politics that are destroying the nation.  I believe in Al because California needs new blood to protect its decaying economy.  I believe in Al because California needs someone to support the environment without destroying industry or agriculture.  I believe in Al because he has the right ideas to get the country and the state back on track.

Please click on the link above to learn a little bit more about the man.

Thank you,

Frank

Excuses for Obama's Failure to Lead

This is a great article by Mr. Krauthammer explaining why the Democrats should stop whining. Why the US is governable and why Obama is a complete failure. We only have three more years of this guy left. Hopefully!


Excuses for Obama's Failure to Lead

"In God We Trust" by Ira Schwartz

Last week Lancaster Mayor Rex Parris was giving his yearly State of the City address when he made the remark that he was “growing a Christian community”. Almost immediately the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a federal Civil Rights Complaint with the Department of Justice citing that the Mayors remarks violated the civil rights of non Christians.

This is the same Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, which ended without any convictions in a mistrial. They are also accused of being a front for Hamas, being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee, associating with anti-Semitism, and have raised concerns within our government about the group's foreign Arab funding. So they are not the most reliable point man in a civil rights suit. None the less they do bring up a valid point. Government and religion should not mix.

However Mayor Parris’s “Christian Utopia” is only the tip of the iceberg. He also wants to start each City Council meeting with a Christian prayer. When questioned about this Parris said he thinks most people of other faiths understand and support him, but activists "want ... a fight. They want their 15 minutes of fame." Supporters of the Mayor say that all faiths have been welcome to do the invocations but according to the Daily News that appears not to be the case.

“An archive of meeting agendas and minutes posted on the city's Web site shows that 24 of the 27 invocations given in the past year were given by representatives of Christian groups including a dozen prayers led by Parris or a Planning Commission member. Two invocations were given by the Rev. Maxine Shiltz of the metaphysical Revealing Truth Center and one by a Girl Scout leader.”

The Daily News also reported that last August, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California sent a letter to Lancaster officials saying it considered the invocation policy unconstitutional and warning of legal action unless it was halted. The City Council responded by putting the issue on the ballot.

Measure I asks voters if the Lancaster City Council should "continue its invocation policy in randomly selecting local clergy of different faiths to deliver the invocation without restricting the content based on their beliefs, including references to Jesus Christ."

The ACLU again warned the city that if the ballot measure passes they will file a lawsuit that could cost Lancaster and its citizens hundreds of thousands of dollars. And since the California Superior Court already ruled a prayer "in the name of Jesus Christ" violated the U.S. Constitution's establishment-of-religion clause, it is likely Lancaster will lose. Roger Jon Diamond, the Santa Monica-based attorney who successfully argued the case against Burbank said to the Daily News, “It’s a clear legal precedent for any city in California.”

In 1962 the Supreme Court Stated in a ruling of 6-1, “we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.” Clear and simple for all to understand.

What Rex Parris says or believes as a private citizen is his own business but when he uses the mantle of a government office to push those beliefs on others I take notice. And, quite frankly so should you. I wonder what part of “Representing all the people” does this man “not” understand. Lancaster is by no means a solely Christian community. True the majority of its citizens are Christian but even if there were only one other person in all of Lancaster that was not of the Christian faith that one person would still be protected by the constitution. If this man believes this strongly about his religion and finds it impossible to separate his own beliefs from the welfare of all his citizens then he needs to step down as Mayor and become an advocate for the repealing of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

For more information on this issue you can access the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#Article_6_of_the_United_States_Constitution

http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_14395658?IADID=Search-www.dailynews.com-www.dailynews.com

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Lancaster-Mayor-Wants-Jesus-Prayers-and-Christian-Community-83161862.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-02-08-christian-muslim_N.htm

Copyright 2010 by Ira Schwartz - All rights reserved.  Used by permission.

Obama is Ruining His Presidency and His Party

This is a great article.


Obama is Ruining His Presidency and His Party

Prachya Pinkaew to go "Elephant" hunting

This is the official announcement of my new film in today's "Hollywood Reporter."


Prachya Pinkaew to go "Elephant" hunting

Global Warming shocker! Climategate scientist admits no warming since 1995 UPDATED: Or did he? | Washington Examiner

This one says it all about Mr. Gore and company. He should not only give all his Oscar back but he should also give all of the money back he has made from this Scam!


Global Warming shocker! Climategate scientist admits no warming since 1995 UPDATED: Or did he? Washington Examiner

"Government Monitoring of Cell Phones?" by Craig Covello

The Government May Be Given Unrestricted Access to Your Location in Real Time.  Today, the First Federal Appeals Court has a case on its docket 08-4227.

"In the matter of the application of the United States of America for an order directing a provider of electronic communication service to disclose records to the government. United States Of America, Appellant."

What does this mean? It means that the government wants cell phone companies to provide information regarding your whereabouts without a judicial warrant. Arguing on behalf of your privacy will be Kevin Bankston who is an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Arguing against your privacy will be the US Department of Justice lawyers who claim that the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution does not apply to the privacy of phone company records.

What is the position of the Obama administration? Predictably, the administration is on record as saying that Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" concerning cell phones.

This opinion is also shared by US District Judge William Pauley, a Clinton appointee, in his 2009 opinion involving a case about drug trafficking. The government's position against privacy is based upon legal precedents set in the 1970s which purport that any record held by a third-party about us, regardless of how it is collected, is not protected by the fourth amendment. In essence, confidential relationships you may have with a company or even individual is subject to government scrutiny. This legal opinion is 35 years old, before existence of Google, email, Facebook and certainly cell phones. But if I interpret it correctly, government access would also apply to bank records, insurance records, medical records and organizational memberships. All this information could be gathered without the check and balance of the courts.

We all know that President George W. Bush pushed for passage of the patriot act during his presidency. In case you've forgotten, the patriot act allows the federal government to institute wiretaps on American citizens without a search warrant based upon the overarching rationalization of national security. The name "patriot act" is questionable since most Americans may not consider unrestricted wiretapping as "patriotic". In any event, liberal Democrats were passionately opposed to the concept of government spying on citizens without any case-by-case authorization from the courts. Now it appears that the Democrats are no longer concerned with privacy when Obama gives the thumbs-up to government tracking of citizens using cell phone technology.

Maybe they really are concerned but afraid to speak up. Someone might know where they are.

For more details, visit CNET at:  http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html

Copyright 2010 by Craig Covello.  All rights reseved.  Used with Permission.

More on the Space Race (Or Lack Thereof)

A few days ago, I wrote an article about President Obama’s decision to cease funding our manned space program and put an end to any plans NASA had for returning to the moon. My friend Ira Schwartz wrote a follow up article a few days later. Collectively, these were the two most commented on articles in the history of this column.

As most of you will recall my article was full of memories from my childhood growing up in New York. It also dealt with some of the reasons why the space program is a necessity. Many of you disagreed.

In my prior article, I mentioned and stressed the national pride created by the Space Program to the United States and it citizens. This is true. The space program in the 60’s did bring a lot of national pride to the country. Unfortunately, what is left of the space program does not.

Why? The answer unfortunately is very simple. We have not had a visionary regarding space exploration in the White House since the resignation of Richard Nixon. Since that time, NASA has been the easiest chopping block because many people think that it is nothing more than a source of pride. “Since there is no more “space race”, there is no need for NASA.” This is another statement that I grossly disagree with.

NASA brings jobs, technology, and lastly, national pride.

During the heyday of NASA in the 1960’s and 1970’s there, were thousands of people employed either directly or indirectly by NASA, as well as thousands employed by its contractors and subcontractors. For example, besides the obvious employment in Houston at Mission Control and Florida at the Kennedy Space Center, there were thousands of people employed all over the country.

Grumman Aerospace on Long Island, one of NASA’s biggest contractors, employed hundreds on Long Island when it was awarded the contract to build the Lunar Modules. I am proud to say that my father was actively involved in the construction of the LEM. Hughes Aircraft (now Raytheon) was involved in the construction of many NASA items. As was Boeing and a slew of others. A partial list of NASA Contractors can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_contractors.

In fact, the top 25 NASA contractors in 2008 included: Lockheed Martin, California Institute of Technology, Honeywell, ITT, University of California System and University of Arizona System. The full list of the top 25 can be found at: http://www.govexec.com/features/0808-15/0808-15s13s1.htm.

In plane and simple language NASA means jobs. But, that’s not all: The Space Program also means advances in science and technology.

A list of common items that are a direct result of the space program and space exploration includes: integrated circuits, scratchproof lenses, composite golf clubs, high-density batteries, blue-blocking ultraviolet sunglasses, the computer mouse and freeze-dried food. For a partial list, please see: http://www.independentmail.com/news/2009/jul/20/technology-nasa-space-program-continues-touch-ever/ , and http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/oct/HQ_08255_SPINOFF_08.html.

Today I was listening to CNN and they were talking about the launch of one of the final planned manned space missions. The Challenger took off in a flawless nighttime launch yesterday. During the discussion on CNN, it was stated that NASA is already planning 8,000 layoffs as a result of President Obama’s decision last week. That does not include any people that will be laid off at the myriad of NASA contractors. Is this the right thing to do during a recession? Maybe save some of the money on welfare and entitlement and put it into NASA.

This is just more evidence of the current administrations short sightedness. So, forget about the national pride, forget about technology. Keep NASA funded just for the jobs. And, maybe our children and grandchildren might have something to remember, especially if their dad is still employed.

© 2010 by Frank T. DeMartini Permission will be granted freely to copy upon inquiry.

"Broken" Health Care by Craig Covello

I work as a project manager for the IT component of a large healthcare organization. Usually the work feels rewarding, especially when you can see the tangible results of the project team's efforts. But on days like today, it is especially satisfying. I made a difference in the life of a 17-year-old cancer patient. Let me explain.

For a long, long time, our organization has been trying to implement wireless LAN guest access for use by patients and their families on laptop computers and smart-phones. No big deal, right? Well maybe not for Starbucks, but in a hospital setting we have to be very careful with frequencies and bandwidth utilization so that clinical information systems are not degraded, or worse attacked, as a result of Internet surfing by the public. We finally arrived at a solution. At 9:00 PST last night, we flipped the switch. Wireless guest access is now available on the entire hospital campus.

The truth is we were not planning on flipping the switch quite this soon. There's additional work to be done regarding generation of public relations announcements, but we decided to activate the system early because of a special circumstance. It seems that there was a young man who was admitted three months ago and is still undergoing chemotherapy. To make matters worse, this kid won't be going home for at least another three months. In the meantime, he's staring at the four walls of an isolated sterile room. Sure, there's the occasional mind numbing diversion of "reality" television, but how much of that can even healthy person take? (I don't think anyone's writing television scripts anymore, right Frank?) Our organization's hospital administrator was sensitive to this situation, so she gave me a call inquiring if there was any way we could expedite campus-wide access to the Internet, specifically for the benefit of this particular patient. What could I say? The answer, of course, was yes. We made this a priority. It was available as of this morning. In fact, I had the privilege of delivering a laptop to this teenager. Both he and his mother were very grateful. Can you imagine a 17-year-old diagnosed with cancer and stuck in a hospital room without being able to communicate with his friends via e-mail or Facebook for the past 3 months?

What does any of this have to do with politics?

Well, it occurred to me walking out of the hospital that there has been a lot of negative press regarding American healthcare lately. Even Obama himself said "Our health-care system is broken: expensive, inefficient, and poorly adapted...” Nancy Pelosi was also quoted as saying - ““You go through the gate. If the gate's closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll poll vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get health care passed for the American people.” She speaks as if to imply that there is no health care for the American people at all. Time for a reality check. There is no national "crisis", and now it looks like Obama has put health-care reform on the back burner. If it was truly a national crisis, why would he give it such a casual mention 30 minutes into the State of the Union address? More on that later.

Obama used the term "broken". The definition of "broken" means that something is not working. That's not the case here. We certainly have issues regarding escalating healthcare costs which need to be addressed, but not by having the federal government take over under the guise of reducing costs. Far too many examples have been cited illustrating how the federal government's control of anything actually increases costs. To say otherwise is disingenuous. And it also implies that escalating costs are caused by a greedy free market. Politicians have vilified insurance companies over this issue, but have you heard much commentary regarding the improvement in care over the past 15 years? Has this health care debate said anything about the cost of research, which roughly doubled 1994 between 2003? Miracles cost money. How much is a life worth? These are tough questions. It is easier to target an industry and attack it than being honest about where the money is being spent.

There have also been a lot of alarming statistics thrown around regarding the number of uninsured Americans. The White House believes this number is about 45 million people, or 15% of the population. Other studies suggest it's closer to 3% when you consider those who choose not to have insurance or those who are between jobs. I don't know which statistic is closer to the truth, but based upon my experience listening to this administration, it's probably closer to 3% than 15%. Yes, the unemployment rate is currently 9.7% and certainly much higher if we consider people who have stopped looking for jobs and are no longer counted. But the number of individuals sans healthcare does not necessarily mirror the number of unemployed, since health insurance plans typically cover households. These households may have spouses who provide family coverage. No matter. Even if we use the most liberal number of 15%, it still means that 85% of Americans have health insurance and they want to keep it in place.

And if our system is so "inefficient", why do we offer some of the best care in the world? Case in point: the 60-year-old Canadian premier Danny Williams recently came to the United States for heart surgery to correct a rare aneurysm. Canadian officials believe that there is an adequate cardio care in places like Ontario, but they also admit that no one in their entire country has much experience with treating William's rare condition. He's in good company with other Canadian officials who have sought US healthcare as lifesaving alternative to Canada's nationalized health system. This list includes Quebec’s Robert Bourassa in 1990 and Parliament's Belinda Stronach in 2007. These examples are purely anecdotal, but they are telling.

My personal opinion? Healthcare is not "broken". Healthcare is in the cross-hairs of the government because that's where a lot of money is these days. If the White House numbers are correct, forcing 45 million people into federally mandated, administered and under-funded healthcare programs will not reduce costs, but it sure is a good way to skim a percentage off the top for government coffers. This concept will also introduce layers of additional bureaucracy which will do nothing but complicate this situation, put additional barriers between the doctor-patient relationship, limit choices and reduce the overall quality of care. That's a strong statement, but stop and reflect for a moment the possibility of politicians in Washington making health care decisions for you. Oh, by the way, it was proposed that Congress be exempt from the plan and that Unions be exempt from certain types of health care taxation. Also telling.

Some may think that this article touches on a stale topic. After all, Obamacare is dead, right? Wrong. It failed publicly, so be prepared for stealth mode. Rename it, break it into smaller pieces and repackage it. Delay the schedule. Work behind the scenes to get federal control over the healthcare system. Remember what the queen of the Air force taxi service said: "we'll poll vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get (nationalized) health care passed for the American people.”

Let's say Nancy gets her way. Fast forward 10 years and I wonder how the situation with our 17-year-old cancer patient would be if Obamacare was implemented. Would he have a private room as he does today? Would he have a hospital administrator advocating on his behalf in order to lift his spirits with free Internet access? Would his family be able to afford an insurance policy that would pay for a hospital stay in excess of six months? Would he receive the best care, as judged by his physician? Or would he simply be told by a federal employee to go home after two weeks with a med dispenser because of the new, "efficient, government healthcare?

The health care system is not broken. Ask the teenager.

© 2010 by Craig Covello. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

Is Denmark So Bad by Michael Cochrane

Last fall this column published an article on Swedish Socialism.  Here is an article that is not really a followup, but again points to the problems with European style Socialism that our president is so in love with.  This time case in point, Denmark.  So, as written by my colleague, Michael Cochrane . . . . .

The other day I caught a portion of a story on NPR’s “All Things Considered” about tax rates in Denmark. It seems that every year there is a report issued that lists every country in decreasing order of tax rates, and apparently Denmark tops the list year after year as the nation with the highest tax rates.

I didn’t quite catch the percentage of income taxation, but the NPR story did point out that there is a 25% value added tax on all goods and services, and a 200% tax on new automobile purchases! Yes, you heard correctly. To buy a vehicle worth $20,000, a Dane would have to shell out $60,000! I suspect that most of what one earns in Denmark is paid to the government through either income taxes or VAT.

You might expect the Danish government to provide ample benefits and social services for this high rate of taxation, and you’d be right. In addition to free, universal health care, there is a retirement entitlement, and unemployment benefits are paid for up to four years. Most of the people interviewed for the NPR story were actually very happy to pay these high taxes because of all the benefits they received.

A Danish economist and university professor was interviewed who said that, on the whole, the Danish system of social welfare allows employers to be very agile in terms of hiring and firing. Employees can be let go (and rehired) very easily, but with generous unemployment benefits, they usually don’t worry about income. The only downside he suggested was that, “Some people will take the opportunity to stay unemployed because they're paid to stay unemployed”, leading to slower economic growth.

Having lived in Europe on three occasions, I really appreciate the orderliness and security one experiences there. You go to any café in Europe and you can expect a relatively high level of service. Roads and streets are well built and well maintained. Houses are constructed to last hundreds of years. The standard of living seems to be uniformly high.

So, did we get it wrong in the USA? Has Denmark in particular and Europe in general figured out the secret of the ideal utopian lifestyle?

Somehow, though I will be the first to admire all Europe has to offer, I don’t think their economic wonderland can last. In the years immediately following World War II, the Germans, and indeed all of Western Europe, worked feverishly to rebuild their devastated nations. Within only a decade or two, Western European countries had returned to a standard of living nearly on a par with that of the United States. Europeans, particularly the West Germans, worked very hard and productively, building an enviable economy and high living standards for her citizens. When I was first stationed in Germany in 1980, virtually no Germans used credit cards. But in the last three decades, the European worker through the agendas of social democracy, has seen his work week reduced to 35 hours, his vacation increased to more than six weeks per year (in addition to Christmas holiday break) and has acquired numerous other social benefits. Increasingly, Europeans want both the benefits of the welfare state and the income to choose a consumerist lifestyle – buying on credit, having the latest gadgets, better cars, etc.

You can’t have it both ways.

Ultimately, government cannot directly contribute to the growth of an economy. Only business activity can do that. Governments can only redistribute wealth, they cannot create it. To be sure, governmental policies can create an economic environment conducive to the creation of wealth, but they cannot by themselves “grow the pie” larger.

So, should we in the USA emulate the European style of social democracy? It is certainly tempting. However, it’s important to realize that the United States is orders of magnitude larger than Denmark, or even Germany, in terms of population and size of the economy. What might work for delivering services for taxes paid in Denmark would be utterly unworkable in the US. Our Constitution is structured in such a way that it only proscribes limited functions to the Federal government, and reserves the remainder to the States and the people. This suggests that our citizens would be better served if Federal taxation were minimized, with social services primarily provided at the State and local level, where there is more of a direct relationship between the people and the government.

I’m willing to be proved wrong, but I think that the best balance between government and the private sector in providing needed services is to default to minimum essential governmental services, particularly at the Federal level. This gives maximum freedom to individuals to choose their own destiny. It tends to foster a robust and resilient economy where localities are free to choose the degree to which they are taxed and receive local government benefits.

Ultimately, I believe that welfare states tend to stifle the individual initiative and innovation necessary for lasting economic development and the growth of living standards. It may be only a matter of time, but I think that the trend in Europe toward increasing reliance on the benevolence of the state will result in an ultimately unsustainable system in danger of collapse. My hope is that if and when that collapse comes, it will not be catastrophic.

© 2010 by Michael Cochrane. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

To Boldly Go . . . . by Ira Schwartz

“Space the final frontier….” I don’t think there is a person in this country if not the planet that does not recognize the beginning of this preamble. Most of us know the rest too. In 1966 Star Trek warped onto the TV screens all across America. Gene Roddenberry’s creation showed us a future of hope and enlightenment where all our races worked together to achieve a better life. True, back then it was just Science Fiction but then a strange thing happened; Neil Armstrong stepped down off a small ladder and became the first human being to walk on another world. That “one small step for man” brought the whole world to a stop and for that brief moment we were all one people.

It’s strange how certain things mark a turning point in the path a civilization takes. The Apollo missions to the moon were a positive focal point for our world. It brought hope in a time of much despair and danger. People could now look up at the moon and know man had been there and was going back.

But NASA did their job too well. The missions went off flawlessly and became routine. As public interest dropped so did NASA’s budget. Instead of building and maintaining a base on the moon NASA determined it would be cheaper to build an orbital space station. The last footprints of man on the moon were made in 1972, just three years after the first. Thirty eight years later the “International Space Station” still remains a work in progress and NASA is preparing to mothball the remaining shuttles in September 2010.

So with no shuttles to get our astronauts into space and no new lifting vehicles on the drawing board how will our people get up to the space station? We’ll be hitching a ride with the Russians. And you’d be wrong if you think the Russians will be doing this out of the goodness of their heart. Rumor has it that the US will have to pay the Ruskies 50 million dollars per astronaut per launch. Can we sink any lower? Actually we can; Last week President Obama stated that the moon will no longer be a priority for NASA. This effectively puts NASA out of the Manned Space business and puts America into last place in the space race.

But all is not lost. Out in the Mojave Desert, amid the carcasses of discarded airliners rusting in the sun a strange thing is taking place; a 10,000 foot long, 200 foot wide runway is under construction. When completed in the spring or summer of this year it will be the third largest runway in the world. So why build a runway in the middle of nowhere? To land spacecraft of course.

You see we Americans still believe that if you want something done right you gotta do it yourself. This runway is just the beginning of the first privately owned and run spaceport in the world. Backed by several entrepreneurs including “Virgin Galactic’s” Sir Richard Branson, Spaceport America plans to have ISS flights up and running by the end of 2012. And Virgin Galactic is not alone. According to the January issue of “Popular Science” there are at least 14 companies that hold contracts from NASA to launch payloads into space for them. Most, if not all, also have manned orbital craft either on the drawing board or under construction and are dedicated to the success of Spaceport America. We could see intercontinental sub orbital flights in 3 to 5 years and orbital passenger flights by the end of the decade. With the moon in their eventual crosshairs, mining rights you know, can Mars be far behind? Space is getting exciting again and profitable.

The privatization of the space program was only a matter of time. Ever since the end of the moon landings NASA’s budgets have become smaller and smaller. Despite what anyone else says I truly believe this has led the agency to constantly put vehicles into orbit that were way past their prime and unsafe, indirectly causing the death of those chosen to fly them. It’s a sad end to a once great agency. It just proves that anything our government runs eventually turns to shit.

So I say “screw” Obama, bye, bye NASA and hello SPACEPORT AMERICA. The torch has been passed to the next generation of space explorers. Hopefully they will continue to “seek out new worlds and civilizations and to boldly go where no one has gone before.”

Links to Spaceport America and Virgin Galactic are listed below. Also the January issue of “Popular Science” has several in depth articles about the private space race. Its good reading. Live long and prosper.

http://www.blogger.com/goog_1265214732200

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

© 2010 by Ira Schwartz. All rights reserved. Used with permission

NO, NO, They Can't Take That Away from Me by Craig Covello

On December 23rd 2009, the notes on this website reported that Obama conferred diplomatic immunity upon the international police organization known as INTERPOL, effectively making its domestic office records off-limits to US law enforcement, the United States judicial system and even the freedom of information act. Now it looks like the Obama administration has started the process of ceding control of the Internet domain servers to the international community. In effect, this means that an international body will eventually have the power to direct and even restrict Internet traffic. It also opens the door for Internet taxes at an international level. The rationalization for giving up U.S. control of the Internet centers around the idea that the Internet has become so powerful and so vital to international communications that the United States cannot be trusted with its stewardship. Really? Let me point out a few facts.

The Internet was born in the United States. The two Americans working for the Department of defense advanced research project invented in the early 1970s. Their names are Dr. Robert Kahn and Dr. Vinton Cerf. (Sorry Al Gore).

The Internet was based around an open architecture to ensure free and open communications. It was never intended or designed to be censored. Domain servers are spread out across the land and direct traffic, similar to social networking. The concept of centralized Internet control is an oxymoron.

The Chinese government has recently been accused by the United States of hacking into Google accounts of journalists and human rights activists. In response, Google has threatened to pull its operations from China. China has denied the allegations, saying that their constitution guarantees free speech, but with the caveat that they can censor communications that "disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens, or interfere with the educational system of the state". In short, you can say what you want as long as the Chinese government agrees with it.

The Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has also weighed in on Google, which owns YouTube, by pushing legislation which would force Internet service providers to be responsible for any content posted on their servers or be subject to severe fines. You may remember that the 72-year-old prime minister was in the news last year when he was implicated in a sex scandal. This is the guy who is concerned about inappropriate Internet content. It also appears that Italy has plans to further this legislation within the European Union. This is an unprecedented move on freedom of speech and freedom of communication in Europe. Not surprisingly, Italy has one of the lowest Internet usage rates in Western Europe.

True to Obama's style, we watch one hand while the other hand works behind the scenes. Case in point - Hillary Clinton made a speech on January 21 reaffirming our country's position on Internet freedom." Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government and our civil society. Countries or individuals that engage in cyber attacks should face consequences and international condemnation". So on the one hand, we say we want to protect Internet freedom, freedom of speech and privacy of Internet service provider files. On the other hand, we want to give up control over the Internet to an international body because apparently Americans cannot be trusted. It's as if someone started a company, built it into something magnificent with sweat equity, vision and commitment, only to have some government authority step in and say we don't trust you to run it anymore because it has become too important.

Thank you Mr. Obama. We know that you have faith in America, unless the "international community" disagrees

 

Copyright 2010  by Craig Covello.  Used with Permission.  All rights reserved.

From the Earth to the Moon

I am a child of the 60’s and 70’s. I was born on Long Island, New York and raised there during that turbulent era. It was a time filled with the desire for peace and the search for love. It was a time when the United States was at a crossroads. It was also the time of many of my fondest memories. In fact, the period from 1968-1975 was a time that shaped the future of the United States.

It was the last time the country was in great turmoil. We were deeply into the worst part of the Vietnam War. The country was split in two over many decisions made in that war. It was very hard to watch the news every night and see our soldiers dying in Vietnam and being ridiculed back home in the United States. The war demonstrations were happening and being televised daily.

It was also the last time there was a constitutional crisis in our country. It was the closest the country ever came to an internal revolution. The crisis peaked with the Watergate Scandal in which Richard Nixon was forced to become the first and only president to resign the office in August, 1974 (which by the way was the first year of Saturday Night Live). President Nixon abused power and paid the price.

However, the price the country was forced to pay because of Nixon’s indiscretions was the election of the worst president the country has ever seen, Jimmy Carter. When Mr. Carter left office in 1981, the economy was in shambles and our international policy was considered a joke. But, that is the topic of a possible future column.

For now, I want to talk a little bit about 1969. Forty-one years ago. Hard to imagine, but that’s how long ago it really was. 1969 was the year of many firsts. It was one of the greatest years to be a New Yorker. It was one of the greatest years to be an American.

It was the year of the first and only Jets’ Super Bowl win; the year of Joe Namath’s guarantee. It was the year of the first New York Knicks’ NBA title; the year of Walt Frazier, Willis Reed, and soon to be Senator Bill Bradley. And, it was the year of the New York Mets’ first World Series Championship: The year that those of us who are Mets’ fans will never forget.

The Mets won the World Series again in 1986, but it did not have the emotion and impact of 1969. 1986 was not the year of Tommie Agee, Cleon Jones, Don Clendenon, Bud Harrelson, Jerry Koosman and one of the greatest pitchers of all time Tom Seaver. It was a dream come true as a New Yorker for former Brooklyn Dodger first baseman Gil Hodges to lead the hapless Mets to that 1969 championship.

It was also the year of Woodstock; what some people call the end of the hippie era. The three day festival of music and love in upstate New York started as a simple rock concert and turned into a legendary event that has since become the Mecca that every rock extravaganza tries to emulate.

It was a truly wonderful year to be a New Yorker.

And, it was a wonderful year to be an American.

It was the year of Apollo 11. There is not one person alive on that July date that does not remember Neil Armstrong stepping his foot onto the lunar surface and uttering those immortal lines:

“This is one small step for man and one giant leap for mankind.”

And, it was. As most of you know, I am in Thailand prepping a feature film to be directed by Prachya Pinkaew. Just yesterday Prachya and I were talking and the Apollo missions came up. Prachya told me that in Thailand there was no school on that July day except for the students to watch the lunar landing on TV. It was truly an international event.

Since that July 1969 day, man has gone to the moon 5 more times. The last of which was Apollo 17 in December 1972. In the 38 years since, we have not returned. I often wonder why? It took us eight years to get there the first time. Why is it taking so long to get there a second time?

For those of us that were alive on that July, 1969 day, it will never be forgotten. Those under 40 were not there and cannot understand what I am relating. They have no recollection of the heroes that were the astronauts; of the great pride in being American; of the wonder of going outside and seeing the moon and knowing that we had placed someone there. We put men on the moon six times and returned them safely. No other country has ever accomplished it. No other country has ever tried. Tom Hanks came close to showing the emotion attached to that achievement in the HBO miniseries, “From the Earth to the Moon.” But, he only came close. You had to live it; to experience it. You had to be there.

Just last week, President Obama gave his State of the Union Address. A speech that was uninspired and really proves that this is a man without ideas: a man who was elected to a position that he is unqualified to hold. He is a man lost in the complexity of his vision and his ambition. Thus far, he is a failure.

Today, President Obama is releasing his budget for the next fiscal year. A budget that proposes the largest deficit in the history of the United States: 1.6 trillion. That’s right, trillion. According to Fox News, it is a budget that freezes discretionary spending, except for defense. It does not address the fastest growing parts of the federal budget; social security, Medicare and Medicaid. It leaves them to grow unabated along with the deficit.

However, it does address one issue. It scraps NASA’s plan to return to the moon. According to the cited CBS News article, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/17/tech/cnettechnews/main5168126.shtml, NASA had planned to go the moon by 2020 and set up a permanent base there to be used for missions to Mars and beyond. Imagine that, we were going to bring that glory back to our country.

Upon hearing this last year, my childhood memories of the Apollo Astronauts and the entire space program came back. The national pride came back. The desire for scientific knowledge came back. We were going to continue our search to the stars.

The CBS article is a good primer for all of the reasons to go back to the Moon and to continue space exploration. I will not repeat most of them, but I will say that the expense is worth it. It is worth it in more than national pride. It is a real stimulus package. It will create jobs. It will create new technological advancements. And, it will do so over a number of states. The beginnings of the program are already active in 11 different states.

So, I say to President Obama, if you have any vision; if you want to be remembered for something other than your failures; if you want to do something right, then echo the immortal words of John F. Kennedy:

“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win. . .”

The full text of Kennedy’s, September 12, 1962 speech at Rice University can be found at: http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm.

So, President Obama, while you still have a chance to save your failing presidency, do you have the guts to challenge America in such a way? Do you have the guts to have such a vision? Do you have the guts to show any love for the country you lead?

© 2010 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be granted freely upon request.