When governance caters to Wall Street rather than a good economy and 'the citizen.'

When Wall Street destroys it's consumer base by impoverishing 'the peasants' even further to soak up profits instead of investment in it's future, it also collapses the tax base of the government at all levels. The most dramatic example of the tax base collapse was in the investment Americans made and their cities made in the value of housing, namely Property Tax that supports schools and local services.

When the housing market collapsed, it was more than Americans that lost their investment in their own homes, it was the local and county governments that lost their income. What then occurred was more and more contraction of government employees and services. Cities and towns are still recuperating from 2007 and 2008. 

For the life of me I don't understand why any government provides tax incentives for failing businesses. It only creates failure in the government. If a company is marginally struggling then it is a benefit for the local economy, but, if there is major failure, the government should simply let it happen. Best example of that is Dell computers and North Carolina. It was a complete failure. Why even go there? Why allow loss of revenue to the treasury? It was more hope than actual product base. "Build it and they will come."

The future of Wall Street is anti-trust and collapse. The best example of that is Goldman Sachs and Pacific Health Systems.

The year was 2003.

Pacific Health Systems, Inc. (click here) announced today that Howard G. Phanstiel, president and chief executive officer, is scheduled to make a presentation at the Goldman Sachs Global Healthcare Conference at the Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel on Tuesday, June 10, 2003....

As first glance it looked as though Goldman had a real find and would increase the competition in the health care industry. Competition is good, it brings down prices and increases quality. At least that is what is suppose to happen with capitalism. Economic pressures bring about excellence.

Pacific Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1983. It was a very unique and smart company. Besides providing an insurance base, it also invested in the industry. It had an income from premiums, but, also from sales of products within the industry. One complimented the other. What could go wrong? By every estimation this company would chug along nicely providing a good product to consumers while returning modest profits to stockholders.

Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. (click here) provides managed care and other health insurance products to employer groups, individuals, and Medicare beneficiaries in the United States and Guam. Its products include health insurance; health benefits administration; and indemnity insurance products, such as Medicare Supplement products offered through health maintenance organizations (HMO) and preferred provider organizations. The company also offers various specialty managed care products and services as a supplement to its basic commercial and senior medical plans or as stand-alone products.... 

Pacific Health Systems, Inc. marketed their insurances under two names, PacifiCare and SecureHorizons. As a matter of fact those names are still marketed. SecureHorizons was even marketed by AARP. Below is an example of the insurance over the years and some of the complaints dating back to 2010.

February 7th
AARP Scure Horizons - Insured (click here)
Secure Horizons denied my husband's claim because his doctor was not listed in their records. The Doctor's name is listed on my husband's Secure Horizon card as the Primary Care Physician. Secure HOrizon sent him this card more than a year ago. In order for us to get assistance in this matter we have to go through an appeals process. Just because they don't keep accurate or...

Why would Goldman Sachs be interested in such an investment in 2003?

Medicare Part D was passed by the US Congress in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and would go into effect in 2006. But, Goldman couldn't make it to 2006 with it's investment. Instead, Goldman went for a quick profit rather than long term investment and the healthy practice of capitalism.

So, in 2003 Goldman Sachs said to their investors this is a great idea, invest in Pacific Health Systems, Inc. and indeed they did. But, instead of the investment creating a sustainable company, it was turned around for a relatively quick profit and sold in 2005.

By MILT FREUDENHEIM

Published: July 7, 2005

Correction Appended

UnitedHealth Group, (click here) the nation's second-largest health insurer, made a big push into the rapidly growing Medicare market yesterday by agreeing to buy PacifiCare Health Systems for $8.14 billion in cash and stock.

By adding PacifiCare's 3.3 million enrollees, UnitedHealth will have 25.7 million members. That would make it a bigger competitor to the leader in health insurance, WellPoint, which has 27.7 million members and was created by last year's $16.5 billion merger of WellPoint and Anthem....

United Health Care, Inc. has continued to market those names and people who originally purchased policies with Pacific Health Systems in 1983 thought they would continue to have the quality they were paying for, but, with United Health Care becoming a huge conglomerate things changed.

This is the future of Wall Street. It is reflected by the fact exists a 1%. More and more companies are being swallowed up by large conglomerates. As these Mega-Companies, such as United Health Care, increase their scope to bring in more profits and decrease competition they are reducing the number of employees in mergers and decreasing their payroll when mergers are a chronic threat to employment and employees 'take what they can get.'

This is not good governance. Anti-trust exists everywhere in Wall Street. Do I have to remind we are looking at Mega-Banks? When Mega-anything occurs government loses control over governance. We know that for a fact, we witnessed it in 2008 and we are still plagued with this reality as companies seek higher and higher profits on the backs of governments and employees. There is only one scenario that is going to end this draconian capitalism that destroys markets. They will either be split up through anti-trust suits as should occur or they will collapse and the world won't be surprised. 

Will Wall Street be bailed out again? 

No.

Why?

Because the countries they rely on to bail them out won't have anything but debt and a country impoverished and where is the tax base to provide a bailout. This is NOT fantasy, this is reality. How did we get here? Because the governance of the past decades have pandered to the idea Wall Street must survive otherwise we don't have an economy or a political party for that matter. The Supreme Court after all increase the "Ante" in politics to be sure they sell out to Wall Street. 

Interesting word, 'ante.' It is used in poker as a fixed but arbitrary stake put into the pot by each player before the deal. "Ante Up." 

But, the Robert's Court has now demanded Wall Street to not only exist, but, dominate the politics, hence the economy of the USA. In doing so it destroyed a democracy and it's economy.

So, when the Right Wing screams about the national debt are they worried about the future of the country or the future of Wall Street when it needs it's next bailout?

Local economies, counties and states have to build their own economic base driven by interests that support a nation. So, when a state is faced with hostage taking as faced by Washington State, it needs to take a step back from the brink and examine what exactly is occurring and how far the blood sucking CEO will go today and in the future to secure his/her bonus. There are alternatives and unions need to have alternative answers for their members, including employee sponsored businesses that will promise to grow bigger and better than the employer they currently are negotiating. 

That brings me to the dilemma the unions are facing with the health care market and their need for assistance in resolving the matters. I think there is actually great opportunity for unions in this issue. 

Currently, the definition of Small Business by the SBA (include here) can include:

Manufacturing: Maximum number of employees may range from 500 to 1500, depending on the type of product manufactured;

Wholesaling: Maximum number of employees may range from 100 to 500 depending on the particular product being provided;

Services: Annual receipts may not exceed $2.5 to $21.5 million, depending on the particular service being provided;

Retailing: Annual receipts may not exceed $5.0 to $21.0 million, depending on the particular product being provided;

General and Heavy Construction: General construction annual receipts may not exceed $13.5 to $17 million, depending on the type of construction:

Special Trade Construction: Annual receipts may not exceed $7 million; and

Agriculture: Annual receipts may not exceed $0.5 to $9.0 million, depending on the agricultural product.

Why aren't the unions seeking to bring their employees of small business under one insurance umbrella? In other words if an employer is unreasonable in providing their own insurance, the union can enhance the options by bringing them into a large pool of it's own members. 

Unions need to seek input from the federal government in allowing small employers to place their employees into a common pool that will not only benefit the members, but, the employers as well. The employers will remain an attractive employer offering benefits much larger companies offer and still attracting employees they seek. Additionally, the insurance company(ies) will increase their client base and the ability to reduce premiums and costs.

This is a special need in our society, but, it exists. The federal government can assist solving this problem to stabilize the economy and continue valuable employee benefits being sure Americans have a good income and the benefits needed to sustain their wellness. There is a reason for the federal authority to act in solving this problem rather than simply writing waivers or throwing Americans to state pools.

It would seem as though someone through a party and the last song was "Stick it to 'em for profits."

Solidarity Rally - Jan. 2 at 4 p.m., Seattle Union Hall, 9135 15th Pl. S (click here)w

Where is the NLRB when you need them? This is exactly what the labor union complained of, the companies are escalating their profits to destroy unions. Wall Street is making profits on the backs of citizens and destroying their own consumer base.

The real message about 2008 and the Bush Bailout was the fact it pushed Wall Street over the top to destroy the economy of the USA and it wasn't just in housing. The exorbitant profits of Wall Street are obscene. They are unethical simply because it is creating a Third World in all nations and soaking up the income to what was normally the Middle Class.

It isn't just the airline industry. But, this example with Boeing and Delta is more than interesting. This is from the Huffington Post.

Posted: 11/15/2013 3:56 pm EST
Updated: 11/18/2013 3:51 pm EST

Earlier this week, (click here) the legislature in Washington state agreed to give Boeing $8.7 billion in tax breaks through 2040 in an attempt to convince the company to locate production of a new jetliner fleet in the state. It's believed to be the largest state tax break for a company ever. But the huge concession still may not satisfy Boeing.

The company is now threatening to take production of the jetliner fleet elsewhere over a contract dispute with its machinist union. On Thursday, the union shot down a proposal from Boeing that would have replaced worker pensions with a contribution retirement savings plan and guaranteed raises of just 1 percent every other year, according to the Seattle Times. The New York Times reports that the proposed biannual 1 percent raise would have been in conjunction with some cost-of-living escalations....

I think Washington State expected some loyalty from Boeing, but, it just isn't enough. What Washington State should have done was to take the $8.7 billion and provided a reason for the union at Boeing to be competition that would rein in the arrogance of the company.

The talent at Boeing in Washington State is incredible. The problem with Boeing is the management. It is proven and real. But, the Boeing talent could begin their own company in a blink of an eye with some backing to take over the construction hanger.

As a matter of fact if the unions in Washington State were provided monies to develop a MADE IN AMERICA jet, they could bring it in EFFICIENTLY under the cost of any Boeing product. It would be an employee owned shop and the draconian management would be gone and efficiency and QUALITY would return.

The State governments where Wall Street dominates their economy have to begin to build a better economy. The future of Wall Street is a complete collapse of it's profitability. They are not paying their employees enough and skimming profits form those payrolls and Wall Street will collapse of it's own greed. Wall Street is destroying it's own consumer base and the state of the USA have to get out of the way of it's blood sucking strategies.

BY ALWYN SCOTT

Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:52pm EDT

(Reuters) - Boeing Co (BA.N) reported (click here) a surprising 12 percent jump in quarterly profit and raised its full-year forecast on soaring commercial aircraft production and margins, sending its shares up as much as 6 percent to an all-time high....

...The strong third-quarter results from the commercial airplane business, which churned out more planes at higher profit margins in the quarter, compensated for weakness in the defense unit, where revenue rose just 3 percent, margins contracted and profit fell....

As a matter of fact, Washington State would have received it's $8.7 billion back if it had provided the opportunity for the union to create it's own employee owned company because all the defense contracts could go to the new company and not touch the profitability of the commercial airline industry.

Best of all worlds, while the USA brings their industries home and puts their economy back where it belongs.

By Dan Catchpole
"Here they're making record profits (click here) and doing millions in stock buybacks, and Boeing is crying poor house," said Scott Hamilton. "There's a real disconnect."

Who needs a management that makes poor decisions that compromise the company and endanger jobs?

Saturday, December 28, 2013 10:00 p.m

In the air and on the ground, Boeing flew through the headlines this year. (click here)

From burning batteries and grounded fleets of 787s to land deals, union votes and a shiny new jet that hasn't been built yet, Boeing weathered a public relations nightmare over its problem-riddled Dreamliner while at the same time played a chess game with several states in the high-stakes prize for the forthcoming 777X passenger jet....

Putting the Guilt on the Consumer. Another Wall Street defense for profits.

October 22, 2013

Delta Air Lines' quarterly profit (click here) soared into the billions, topping Wall Street expectations as more passengers flew amid a continued uptick in fares and a decline in fuel costs.

Delta's net income for the third quarter jumped 31% to $1.37 billion, the carrier announced Tuesday in an optimistic report that also said holiday bookings have been strong and that the company's revenue outlook appeared "solid" through the year's end.

Without one-time items — such accounting gains from the carrier's fuel hedges — Delta's profit would have been $1.2 billion, or $1.41 per share. That topped Wall Street expectations by 5 cents per share, according to analysts surveyed by FactSet.

Delta's strong results were helped by an increase in passengers and fares.

Delta's passenger traffic inched up by 2% for the quarter while the average fare paid by passengers on a per-mile basis jumped nearly 5%. Overall, total operating revenue rose 6% to $10.49 billion over the same period last year, an increase that was in line with analysts' projections.... 

Turning the tables to focus on consumers doesn't make Delta's error a matter of ethnics when the airline itself is unethical in their victimization of it's "passengers for profit." I don't mind that Delta raises it's prices, it has a right to do so, but, don't tout ethics in consumerism when the airline itself is unethical in their pricing.

by MARK MEMMOTT

December 27, 201310:25 AM

"From about 10 a.m. to noon ET [Thursday], (click here) certain Delta fares on the airline's own website and other airfare booking sites were showing up incorrectly, offering some savvy bargain hunters incredible deals. A roundtrip flight between Cincinnati and Minneapolis for February was being sold for just $25.05 and a roundtrip between Cincinnati and Salt Lake City for $48.41. The correct price for both of those fares is more than $400."

It isn't known just how many folks snapped up the bargains, but Delta says it will honor the fares....

...Why would it be all right, ethically, to purchase tickets at prices that were so obviously wrong? Is it just because "you" weren't to blame and no human being was involved at the other end?...

From the depth of North Carolina. This was a reply online to the DD controversary.

I am so tired of all this politically correct bs. I would much rather a person be honest than worrying about hurting my feelings. So glad that the Duck Dynasty group held their ground on their beliefs. I might even watch the show now.

All being PC does is make a bunch of fake, smile in your face, stab you in the back people. I'd rather know where I stand with you and let you know where you stand with me than all the pretend bs that goes on these days.. I AM VERY POLITICALLY INCORRECT AND PROUD OF IT cause I'm honest.

The statement above is from a Caucasian man that is also an amateur wrestler. He recently lost his wife, the only wife he has known from their youth. She was 52 years old and died of heart failure. The lifestyle killed her. Coronary Artery Disease and a traditional southern diet that Paula Dean would be proud of. They had children, now adults with their own children, that is a comfort to him, but, he is still struggling with the loss. These are simple people of simple means and values and don't sustain change well.

When the Left tries to understand the Right, the question is "How do you fit in to your social group?"

The computer age has created a very invasive personal environment. The net has created an intolerance that is different than others. It has created the intolerance of 'invasive social order.' It causes bullying to say the least. But, it has created intense 'defense of self.' Basically, "Now, you wait one minute there..." The anger with Target is a sincere form of this intolerance. Target has proven untrustworthy with personal information. Now the consumer carries the burden of cost to secure their identities again. 

But as to DD, for those that like duck hunting, have patriarchal families and old time values; this was the last straw. There are far more worse examples of bigotry and intolerance than DD. These 'folks stars' are not full of hate or propagate the reason to hate. There are others that simply appreciate their values. The show has been absent of bigotry, so the interview was more or less, the older gentlemen's personal point of view. The show is not giving him an 'atta boy' for his odd personal values. 

What happened here is fairly interesting. The older man went outside the venue of his persona on the show and he got caught. Suddenly, there is a dangerous aspect assigned to his interview and we were off to the races. The show is more or less a  portrayal of men and how they communicate, laugh and care for each other in a close knit family with employees. They get along and share values. They live their lives in privacy within their audience's understanding of it (I am not stating that about their celebrity status, but, the image they project within the show).

Life in the USA has been disappointing since 2008 for many. I am confident there are families that didn't have their usual capacity in gift giving this Christmas and those since 2008. The social police get to  be an annoyance when there is so much more these folks struggle with than benign preferences. Asking them to reach into their value system and see the light is not going to happen. Leave them alone, they are hurting no one and intend to hurt no one.

A&E isn't condoning bigotry by continuing to carry the show on it's network. The network has promised to make an effort independently of the program, to promote tolerance, diversity and social responsibility in relationships with others. In making that commitment, A&E would sincerely expect the DD episodes to be responsible as well. The show is liked by people and I would expect the content would not change, but, it will also NOT escalate bigotry. I would expect A&E has made it clear to everyone involved if there is any taint of promoting hate from the show it will be ended. The public won't tolerate it. A&E would be in real trouble if they allowed the show to change it's stripes after an inflammatory interview and promote hate. I just don't see that happening.

Currently, it is estimated A&E's ratings have fallen 22 percent. I think they will pay attention. 

To many people, Phil is them. They don't see themselves as bigoted. They don't see themselves as hateful of difference. They believe they are as accepting as anyone in the country, so some of the complaints seem more like politics than real life. I am not sure if Americans have a sincere understanding of how subtle implications of intolerance transcend the landscape causing danger in some places to minority and gay people. To most, the awareness of racism is obscure and confusing. They are the majority; why would they understand?

I admire those speaking out in our minority and gay communities. They need to do exactly that. But, tolerance of a man, where Americans find the show enjoyable entertainment, is something we can all live with. One of the underlying drivers of racism and homophobia is that the 'normal' culture will disappear. We've seen the Right Wing extremists touting how that will occur. Indeed, Phil is suppose to be a victory over "minority and gay oppression." This goes along with the idea being black or gay is contagious. So, in tolerating Phil, especially with A&E stating they consulted with the groups insulted by the interview,  the statement is made that other communities have tolerance of difference when that difference is benign.

One other thing. The comments by Phil stating Blacks were happy back then singing church songs, etc. He is trying to relate to the African slave in America. He is justifying slavery as more gentle and a lifestyle than most will give it credit. Who would seek to justify slavery post Civil War in the USA? He reminds me of the kind of mindset found among southerners that still cling to racism. Perhaps a son of the Confederacy. I think the laws of the USA are strong enough to oppress those that still identify with ancestors who were horribly wrong about the course of the nation's history.

With Phil in the media, tolerance is important. But, I would not expect tolerance to turn into oppression of the rights everyone of any skin color or sexual identity. If that were to occur then the trust in A&E and "social generosity in tolerating difference,' is violated. When trust is violated there is far less of it to go around afterward.

Phil is still there and that is important to everyone, not just the Right Wing extremists, after all A&E first consulted with those most insulted by Phil's statements. We'll be fine. But, the strength of our society is found mostly in tolerance and the ability to laugh at the absurd. Phil is absurd. Leave it alone. He is not a threat.

The bestiality 'thing' is about defining the masculine moral content of the military. As if it is something to worry about. Perhaps the USA military will start recruiting perverts now. It would be more difficult for Commanders to keep the troops in line if they are all out frolicking with sheep. Sex would be so accessible and easier that they would be no stopping the intercourse long enough to fight a real battle. That is the way these Right Wing bozos see men that are gay. Any way, any day, all the time. Having sex between men is NOT discipline. The Right needs to ask these questions of PETA and have them come up with policies. 

Walk a mile: 

Sex with women is a discipline. Phil just married his wife and they consummate the marriage. Ten years later they have four children and his wife doesn't want to have anymore. No contraception. No abortion. No sex. It makes a man want to pick up a gun and go hunting to feel like a man. So, the military needs discipline and scanning the populous of the USA, they need to be heterosexual because they are the only people that are disciplined enough. 

Now gays, next sheep, the whole dam country is going to hell in a hand basket.

I have heard holy MEN ministering to an elderly couple when the woman asked, "Do we have to want to have babies in order to be affectionate?" Now what would any reasonable person say to that question? "I don't think God meant for people to estrange affection from each other in their later years." Does that sound right? The preacher told this woman with her elderly husband sitting next to her, "All things are possible with God and you don't know if you would have a baby or not. If you love each other you should show it." So, the bottom line is as long as a couple is willing to have babies they can be affectionate with each other and that is at any age. Now what is that couple going to do in their later years? Travel and have a good time in their sunset years or prepare for a baby just in case. One statement acknowledges the fact older adults won't conceive and the other victimizes the priorities of the couple, but, it goes on.

Whatever get you through the day.

"Fortunate Son" by Creedence Clearwater Revival (click here)

Songwriters: JOHN C. FOGERTY

Some folks are born to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,
Yeah!

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,

acquired August 1 - 31, 2013

The Arctic (click here) continued to shift to a warmer, greener state in 2013. That was the headline from the latest Arctic Report Card, an annual update prepared by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and partner organizations such as NASA. Scientists are tracking a variety of environmental indicators including: air temperature, snow cover, sea ice extent, ocean temperature, vegetation growth, and wildlife behavior. In comparison to 2012, most indicators this year were closer to their long-term averages, but signs of change (fueled by long-term warming) were still present....

One of his favorite rhetorical stance is "...we can't continue to borrow money from China..."

Indeed and we don't. China no longer lends money to the USA. See, China figured out that Wall Street came to their nation for extreme profits while destroying their American market. Then the USA was borrowing all the money it once had as income to their treasury from taxes both of the working class, businesses and the wealthy. So, China saw it's mistake and decided since the USA was headed over the fiscal cliff into the Debt Ceiling Abyss it would loss all the money the USA borrowed. China decided it didn't want to return the lost American economy to the USA when it no longer could pay China back.

"...Do we want to borrow the money from China to pay people not to work...."

Prophesy. That is profound prophesy. Senator Paul recognizes the fact that the unemployment rates are directly related to outsourcing by Wall Street. He sees the hypocrisy in borrowing money from the new Capitalist China in order to pay the people it put out of work. However, Senator Paul proposes no solution, only further victimization of the American worker.

"...You are taking away their choices."

It is amazing how much Marsha Blackburn reminds of Ronald Reagan when he, "In early 1984 (click here) on Good Morning America, Reagan defended himself against charges of callousness toward the poor in a classic blaming-the-victim statement saying that “people who are sleeping on the grates…the homeless…are homeless, you might say, by choice.”

When looking across the Reagan Universe compared to the USA today, it is completely obvious the trends are all the same where the Republicans cut federal monies to communities.

But, that aside, Ms. Blackburn insists people have a right to have poor health insurance as a choice. Amazing.

One man has been assigned "Guardian of the World."

That is not remotely realistic. 

The practice of the NSA is if nothing else unethical. It needs to stop.

I am not saying the program didn't turn up results, but, it didn't stop the underwear bomber or the shoe bomber. Therefore? It should continue? 

The program 'got lucky' on a few occasions. That doesn't mean anything. The NSA is patting itself on the back too much. They sure as heck didn't catch Osama bin Laden.

This program is a pipe dream and dangerous. "If we could only have a mind 
reader tell us when the next bomb is going off." Mind readers are few and far between. To my understanding, which may be completely wrong, the NSA doesn't even employ mind readers.

AND.

The NSA did not tip off Lebanon about the car bomb today! Didn't happen to run across THAT PATTERN in the meta data, huh? And don't tell me there is no one at the NSA not collecting data from Lebanon. That would be a lie.

When one counts all the war, car bombs, random acts of violence and the fact the NSA is collecting all this data and storing it, WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO? It sure doesn't encourage peace. If anything it is just the opposite and putting the USA in the cross hairs of plenty of speculation to it's activities and intentions.

President Obama needs to stop defending this practice and begin to analyze the effectiveness of the program at all. It is not preventing anything that would not be found in other ways. If we spent the money on this computer bullshit for agents and real national intelligence the world might actually be a safer place. 

Currently, considering the size and scope of the NSA program, it has a very poor performance. It isn't worth the money. And would it have stopped 911? NO. Why? Because the Executive Branch did NOTHING to stop it with the intelligence they had. It is impossible to stop maniacal men from being maniacal. That is what the people of the USA and the world are afraid of. They aren't afraid of the program so much as the people in the White House and their justification of another illegal war.

The PROGRAM is dangerous and needs to end. It is untrustworthy in the safety of Americans, for many reasons and not just it's poor performance.

The NSA surveillance program and it's collection and storage of data IS a menace in this world. It is as maniacal as those that claim it is beneficial. There is NO surveillance that is beneficial; that is not the nature of the beast. No one in this world wants a repeat of Iraq or worse. The program has to end. It is not effective, not even close. The storage of data needs to be destroyed.

It looks as though Mr. Snowden's allegations are headed for the US Supreme Court.

Is al-Qaeda still real or has it become a catch phrase for the excuse of snooping? See, if I were al-Qaeda and hiding from detection as we know bin Laden was, why would the organization continue to operate under the same name? Are there card carrying members? Or is al-Qaeda a designation now by some arbitrary classification by The West? Do they have to have attended training camps or is anyone suspected as a potential threat to Western civilization considered al Qaeda?

This is also New York so did anyone expect a different ruling? What is astounding to me is how a US District Judge can lump metadata into the same category of al-Qaeda. There is something profoundly "W"rong with that. In this judge's mind there is no difference between billions and billions of data taken from Americans and Europeans and elsewhere and the idea there is information about al-Qaeda in there. That is a hideous idea. It is looking for a needle in a haystack and the stack keeps getting bigger and bigger all the time.

There is something very "W"rong about that thinking. A District Judge doesn't see the danger of innocent people in all that? Beyond his imagination that the US government will make a mistake. Wow. That is victimization. That is the issue with the NSA, they are ACTIVELY victimizing all those they collect data from. People don't feel safe and it is because of the NSA. People are CURRENTLY victimized by this operation within the NSA. NOW. TODAY. THIS VERY MINUTE. People, millions of people are victimized and feeling unsafe by their own government. That should mean something. Obama needs to stop making excuses for the practice. 

This data supposedly is COMING INTO the USA traffic. Well, then we need strong alliances with other nations seeking end violence in the civilized world. Threatening people with their own words and actions collected by the NSA is not the way to do this.

THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!

New York District Judge William Pauley (click here) said the snooping was a "counter-punch" against al-Qaeda.

He said the National Security Agency (NSA) programme might even have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

Last week a Washington DC federal judge said the surveillance was "likely unconstitutional" and "Orwellian".

But in Friday's decision, Judge Pauley, of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, said "the balance of equities and the public interest tilt firmly in favour of the Government's position"...

I doubt Syria is linked with this assassination. There were no connections to Assad with the first assassination. Hezbollah was on it's own and it maybe there is even a spin off from Hezbollah responsible.

Forensic experts check the site of explosion near a crater in Beirut, Friday, Dec. 27, 2013. (The Daily Star/Mohammad Azakir)

...The March 14 coalition, (click here) which is headed by the Future Movement, pointed the finger of blame at the regime of Syria’s President Bashar Assad, which swiftly denied the allegations....

...The 62-year-old, who was also a close aide to former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, was headed to Hariri’s Downtown residence where a meeting of the March 14 coalition was under way....


At least 71 people (click here) were also wounded in the blast that targeted Shatah’s motorcade as it drove in the capital’s central district.

The March 14 coalition (click here) is named after the mass anti-Syrian rally on that date in 2005 in which over one million Lebanese converged on central Beirut to demand a withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon and an end to Syrian meddling in Lebanese political affairs.

The March 14 rally, held in response to a pro-Syrian demonstration on March 8, was the climax of the month-long series of rallies that followed the assassination of Rafik Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister, in a massive truck bomb explosion on February 14, 2005....

Anytime Hezbollah is mentioned there is automatic mention of Assad. The March 14 coalition was organized following the assassination of a beloved Prime Minister of Lebanon.

...His (Former Minister Mohammad Shatah) killing comes days before the U.N.-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon begins the trial of four Hezbollah suspects over the 2005 assassination of Hariri’s father, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the founder of the Future Movement....

It may be the increased movement of Hezbollah in Lebanon is in response to the trial with very little to do with Syria.

Below is the Late Prime Minister's son Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri. I sure he was anticipating the trail of his father's murderers.

December 27, 2013 12:39 PM (Last updated: December 27, 2013 03:20 PM)

..."Those (click here) who assassinated Mohammad Shatah are the ones who assassinated Rafik Hariri; they are the ones who want to assassinate Lebanon,” Hariri said in a statement hours after a car bomb killed Shatah and five others in Downtown Beirut.

"The suspects are those who are running away from international justice and refuse to appear in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon; they are the ones opening the window of evil and chaos to Lebanon and the Lebanese and are drawing regional fires,” he added....

...He had no particular power base of his own, (click here) but his international experience was valued in government circles. Chatah has been described by Lebanon’s current Prime Minister Najib Mikati as a “noble political figure who believed in dialogue, the language of reason and the right to different views”. His work in government put him into contact with Hezbollah, though he was a vocal critic of it. A message on his Twitter account less than an hour before the blast accused the group of trying to take control of the country. The Shi’ite movement is now suspected by some of being behind his killing, although Hezbollah parliamentarian Ali Ammar described the explosion as a crime. “We condemn this terrorist act,” he told Hezbollah’s Al Manar television. “It is part of a terrorist wave which the region and Lebanon are witnessing.”

The new Sunni - Shia Civil War

This move by the USA will escalate out of control. This has nothing to do with Syria. That is just Iraqi propaganda.

Maliki doesn't want to accept what was Iraq are now three autonomous regions. Western Iraq is what has been known as Al Anbar. It was one of the most turbulent areas in Iraq when the USA was there. It's sovereign right to exist was handed over to the Iraqis some time ago.

Saudi Arabia has been directly involved with Al Anbar Sunnis. They helped them establish a water supply and I think there is even some oil being accessed there. There are Sheiks in Al Anbar. The Sheiks in Al Anbar were among the first to accept American presence in order to turn the region into a productive region. There is no reason to DAMN the entire of Al Anbar to bombardment of Hellfire Missiles. 

The journalist died in Tikrit. Tikrit is where Saddam Hussein is buried. It was his home, if I remember right. 

The introduction of heavy munitions into the hands of Maliki is simply extending the USA's OWNERSHIP of Iraq. It will escalate and be the next civil war to break out. It will escalate of it's own weight and has absolutely nothing to do with Syria's civil war.

When The West introduces heavy munitions into the Middle East they ARE setting up a civil war. Automatic. It will happen sure as the sun rises everyday. Why? Because of sectarian issues.

The MIDDLE EAST needs to be DISARMED and not armed. There needs to be peace among the religious and ethnic factions and the only way to achieve that is to have them end the killing of each other. No different than South Sudan. 

The USA is out of line here and it is because Hellfire Missiles ESCALATE war. It is not a POLICING tool as illustrated in the film above. The film was on Wikipedia.

This IS the USA Military Industrial Complex out of control! Oh, I know, I know, I know. If the USA doesn't do it, then Russia will. Not necessarily.

The film loop above shows EXACTLY how wars escalate. The target are two people walking down a road in an environment where there are shops and/or homes. The first missile does not kill both men and the survivor continues down the road after the explosion. He probably thought it was a road side bomb that went off. "Too bad, I'll get on with my day." Then the drone follows him and another explosion is set off. Then the man runs into a nearby building that the narrator states is a shop of some kind. What is to follow is the drone then seeking to destroy the building the person is now occupying to protect from another attack which he probably doesn't understand why it is happening or where the explosions are coming from.

So, there is one dead, one in shock of some kind hiding in a building and holes in the road that tells everyone there is a war on human life in a way that makes to sense to them.

No doubt when the building is blow to pieces there will be far more than one other casualty. That attack was conducted in Mexico. Hellfire missiles are being used in Mexico to fight the drug cartels and then the USA wonders why there is a war at our southern border.

It is unfortunate journalists died in Tikrit, Iraq, but, that is no reason to escalate the violence and provide a solid footing for another civil war. This time when Al Anbar decides to make a stand when a Sheik is accidentally killed or one of the Sheik's children, Maliki will call on Iran to assist in the war no different than in Lebanon with Hezbollah. 

These are the "W"rongful wars of Neocons. They begin without detection and become a national emergency to the USA and then soldiers die. So, here are the beginning to the return of USA soldiers to Iraq as, of course, the killing in the first 10 years simply didn't do the job when the next Republican enters the Executive Branch or a majority in the Legislature decide they want to conduct another war.

The US Industrial Complex is out of control. It is massive in it's size and scope and it promotes war without end.

By Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt

Published: December 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The United States (click here) is quietly rushing dozens of Hellfire missiles and low-tech surveillance drones to Iraq to help government forces combat an explosion of violence by a Qaeda-backed insurgency that is gaining territory in both western Iraq and neighboring Syria....

Health care is a mandate and it should be.

Insurance pools across the country are going to be basically the same. There are going to be outliars in every group, but, for the most part the pools won't vary that much in the numbers of ages in the group.

The cost of insurance vary state by state. The insurance premiums vary state by state. The amount insurance companies pay to health care providers will vary from state to state, but, the people insured in any particular pool will be statistically about the same based on the state's population, their level of poverty and the quality of their health care system.

So, within a group if an 18 year old goes to a family medical doctor for illness the cost of the office visit is the same as the office visit for a 64 year old with an illness. If they both have come down with the same sore throat and it is strep, their medication will cost the same at the pharmacy.

THAT sameness mitigates the cost of the health insurance. Where the costs vary is when an age group begins to use MORE SERVICES and MORE SPECIALIZED SERVICES. Let's say a fifty year old needs a knee replacement, that will effect his costs. But, if a 20 year old crashes his or her car and send them to the ER and ICU that will effect their costs.

Each age of any American carries with it their health focus. Children die more frequently of accidents than illness. Those over forty run cancer risks. Not to say younger Americans can't get cancer, they do and frequently as in the case of testicular cancer it has a high mortality rate.

But, the rates across any age demographic in the country is going to prove to be based in similar risk factors. Added to that is the HEALTH CONDITION found in states. The people in poverty are going to more ill, therefore, Mississippi runs the risk of having higher premiums because the state's population is more ill. But, Mississippi's population will also receive more financial subsidies to insure them. So, those most effected by poor health will also be receiving subsidies to have them attend to their health issues and improve their quality of life.

As in Kentucky there are many, many people receiving health care for the first time in their lives. Their health will improve, their ability to be employed as a healthy American will improve and their 'on the job' work days will increase with less sick days, their production will go up and the company will increase their profitability. 

Health has an intricate relationship with a country's economy. The healthier the workers, the less down time for a company and an increase in profitability. 

Take Africa for instance. Before there was HIV diagnosis and treatment what were the economic opportunities for the people? Why would a company invest in a community suffering from chronic illness? Same thing holds true in the USA, except, generally we are a healthier country than other nations.

Every American needs to have health insurance. Either through parents when young and/or in college past the age of 18 or independently through a State Exchange or the Federal Exchange for states without their own exchange. It is silly not to have it because there isn't one person in the USA that will never use it.

The COST of health care is the enemy. NOT pitting one American against another.

Let's get something straight. The 'idea' there are older Americans within The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act INSURANCE POOLS is a LIE.

There are no elderly in insurance pools in the USA.

The insurance pools provided through The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are ALL YOUNGER AMERICANS.

The oldest American in ANY insurance pool in the USA is 64 years old.

The age bracket of this law is 18 years to 64 years old. THERE IS NO ELDERLY. 

The elderly are covered by Medicare. Medicare is a government insurance program. Those enrolled in Medicare are not part of the private insurance pools.

There are basically three insurance rates in any health insurance pool.

Ages 18-29 - Which is the base rate.

Ages 30-49 - The base rate plus the base rate.

Ages 50-64 - The rate of the 30-49 year old group plus base rate.

The younger group is NOT subsidizing the older group. They are all paying their own ratings. They are all pulling their own weight.

Those three rates are a very simple explanation. Within those age groups can be sliding scales for each age. I am quite confident the equations used by insurers and state regulators are not that simple. But, there is no one paying for anyone else. Everyone is paying their own rate. 

Questions? 

Health insurance premiums are a reflection of the underlying costs of care. When the cost of medical services such as doctor visits, hospital stays, and medical devices increases, these costs drive a corresponding increase in premiums. Federal government data show that over the past 20 years health benefit costs (i.e. how much the nation has spent on medical procedures, treatments, doctors’ visits, etc.) have increased by an average of 7.2 percent annually and premium increases have averaged 7.1 percent annually. These data demonstrate that health care costs and premiums go hand-in-hand.

This information is provided by AHIP. They state they use federal government data to derive their information to base their statements. This is all math, not voodoo. This is all measurable.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) is the national trade association representing the health insurance industry. AHIP’s members provide health and supplemental benefits to more than 200 million Americans through employer-sponsored coverage, the individual insurance market, and public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. AHIP advocates for public policies that expand access to affordable health care coverage to all Americans through a competitive marketplace that fosters choice, quality and innovation.

Younger American subscribers to health care insurance are subsidizing older American subscribers?

Where is that coming from, because, that is NOT the law.

I read the law. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act clearly states insurance rates for younger Americans are to be set according to standard insurance ratings.

There are multipliers for older Americans and the MOST that can be charged for Older Americans is TWICE the youngest adult rate.

Now, insurance ratings may be skewed by the insurance companies to increase the younger American rate to bump up the rates to older Americans. That is illegal.

The vast majority of states (click here) tightly regulate premium rates for the individual and small group markets throughout the lifetime of a policy. In those states, health plans are required to file their proposed rates with the insurance regulator and state insurance regulators carefully review these rates to ensure that they are neither inadequate nor excessive. 

If people are complaining about their insurance rates, they need to write the Insurance Commission/Regulators in their state. The federal government has nothing to do with it. If insurance companies are padding their costs unrealistically to increase premiums, that illegal. It is up to the states to review the rates companies are charging. Not to say the federal authorities can't get involved, someone has to monitor the corruption in some state governments, but, fraud definitely falls under federal statues.

But, the rate setting is conducted by the State Commissioners.