continued from above. I hope everyone 'studying' the potential for savings realizes these are 'solid' democratic values for economic opportunity.

The bill continues with allowances for inflation, cost of living adjustments and rounding off.

The next section beginning with Page 202, line 18 discusses 'Special Rules' for paying the excise tax, because some people and entities will be treated differently including Non-Resident Aliens that will have to pay the tax, Citizens and Residents living abroad, Charitable Trusts and the FACT that the excise tax will not begin under this law until after the year ending 2010.

From here the bill goes on and one about codes for IRS interpretation and guidelines for language used to identify taxed entities and their degree of taxation and penalities for under payment.

On Page 215, line 21 begins a section entitled "Division B - Medicare and Medicaid Improvements." The table of contents of this section goes through to the end of Page 222. But, much of the 'context' of the bill dealing with areas of that might effect 'payments' to facilities won't cause any changes until January 1, 2010. There are exceptions to payment rule changes to psychiatric hospitals that begin in 2011. This section relies heavily on the Social Security Act regarding Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP. To properly analyze the entire section it would be necessary to also look up those particular laws. I can understand why these provisions might appear in this bill, because, it will impact certain aspects of existing laws whereby insured individuals might find subscribing under this new law more advantageous. Therefore, all this 'payment' information is about a 'timeline' whereby payments would be honored up to a certain date. It makes sense from the standpoint of psychiatric facilities especially because their clients will have to be provided for by 'guardians' which might have a different time scale for change than others such as SCHIP.

This part of the bill is almost written as 'incidentally' to cover any occurrences that might impact existing laws. It is included to clear up where monies will come from to pay these institutions should clients find better opportunity in health care coverage within the new law. These provisions aren't 'changes' to services of people currently covered by Medicare, Medicaid or SCHIP, it is about payments made to them SHOULD there be a change in the choices of their patients/clients/citizens. It is an 'incidental' set of provisions. It will prevent confusion and prevent litigation as well in regard to payments to institutions.

What comes to mind in regard to Medicare in particular are the 'opportunities' the handicapped or disabled might find in having a health insurance that better serves their need, IF, they are competent enough to actually earn more money at jobs than is allowed under Medicare. I think there might be some movement by those currently on Medicare into a different opportunity for coverage that will actually allow them to earn more than they do now under the provisions of Medicare.

I really believe the provisions that discuss Medicare are in the areas of disability or handicapped. Page 236, lines 22 through 25 and Page 237, lines 1 through 3 SPECIFICALLY indicate the delineation of 'under age 65.'

(B) NATIONAL RATE OF UNINSURANCE DEFINED.—The term ‘‘national rate of uninsurance’’ means, for a year, such rate for the under-65 population for the year as determined and published by the Bureau of the Census in its Current Population Survey in or about September of the succeeding year.

The more I look at these provisions the more it seems obvious to me these new laws will open up opportunity to people that otherwise are dependant on incomes that do not exceed limits set by Medicare. In other words, some handicapped or disabled, including the military, that receive disabilty and Medicare or some form of government health insurance will have the 'income limitations' removed as they will have access to a Public Option that does not discriminate to Pre-existing condition. You want to know something? This is going to expand the tax base of the nation and improve the quality of life to people if they are able to work full time and provide health insurance that will not limit their opportunity to income. Wow. I like this new bill. I really do. It doesn't demand people have to change their lives or lifestyles, but, it certainly opens up that opportunity if they desire it. Wow.

Beginning with Page 238, line 4 there in begins the same discussion of provisions for the payment of Physicians (Medicare Part B) as existed for (Part A) institutions. In other words, when physicians will begin to receive payments from health insurance companies or the Public Option and when the transition will occur to the payments from Medicare. Same type of stuff for Physicians.

The interesting aspect of this is that physicians will actually receive 'the same' payment of services for the folks that fall under Part B or they will receive more under the Public Option depending on the 'Provider Base' and the Commissions determination of payments amounts. This is interesting. If a citizen decides to leave Medicare and move to the Public Option in order to earn more money, their physicians will probably not change, but, they will receive higher payments for their services. That is really interesting. Physicians that normally would only receive payments on Medicare scale rates, will now receive more for treating the same patient IF that patient has moved off Medicare to a Public Option or Private Insurance. Wow.

The provisions regarding Medicare and payments, etc. goes on for some number of pages, but, it would seem as though the Secretary of Health and Human Services coordinates all these provisions. So, the responsibility for a smooth transition will occur under the authority of one branch of the cabinet. It won't be necessary for any other offices of the federal government to be involved, but, only that of Health and Human Services. That is a good thing. It will reduce cost of the transition and will make it more efficient.

I will end it there for today. Page 256, beginning with line 1 starts to discuss changes and 'incentive payments' for 'efficient areas.' What are 'efficient areas?' Those areas where electronic records are utilized for administering health care.

I might take Sunday off, so I'll pick up again Monday.

'til then...

... nearly nine of every 10 new mortgages in America now carry a federal taxpayer guarantee.

Clicking on the title to this entry will bring the reader to the 'words' of Henry Paulson, then Treasurer of the USA, when he stated he needed a lot of money from the USA Treasury, perferably in large bills.

"...I appreciate that this is a difficult period for the American people. I also appreciate that Congressional leaders and the Administration are working closely together so that we can help the American people by quickly enacting a program to stabilize our financial system.... "


By Bess Levin
05.30.07 at 10:42 AM
No Room At Goldman's Inn?
Breaking Views reports that, despite robust markets, boom in mergers/buyouts and astronomical investment-banking earnings in the first quarter, Goldman Sachs has begun a hiring “pause.” What does this mean for everyone else? Well, given Goldman’s position in the pecking order of things, and the tendency of humans to be sheep, that others will likely follow. BV believes this may even “herald the first industry-wide freeze since the tech meltdown.”

Breaking Views thinks the “pause” stems from Goldman’s realization that by 2008, the firm will drop to $21.10 a share and down to $19.30 the following year. And asking employees to take a cut in bonuses would be out of the question ($100 million to $80 million, are you out of your minds? Why don’t we just ask our top brokers to subsist on food stamps). Some think this is a prudent and necessary step. We think it’s BS, given that we were considering putting in an application down at 85 after the long weekend. Anyone heard anything? You know where to find us. (Crying into a gossamer pillow over no longer having a ticket out of this dump, that's where).

Bank failures and rescues > Timelines (click here) Also known as "When do we stop this roller coaster?"

Does anyone besides me find it more than odd that the FACT is 9 out of every 10 new mortgages in the USA carry a taxpaper (that was taxpayer) guarantee?

I believe what has happened is that Wall Street is still 'playing' while the business of mortgages for home buyers is left to the people of the USA. I believe we are funding our own recovery and the numbers on Wall Street have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Basically, the banks continue to fail because they can't maintain their own debt load with so many foreclosed properties. The banks that continue to fail never received any bailout funding. They were left to 'struggle' to achieve a goal that wasn't plausible. The 'bail-out' funds went to the larger 'infestment banks' such as Goldman Sachs because 'we were lead to believe' by saving them from COMPLETE failure meant it would stop the eroding of the USA financial infrastrucure.

In fact, 'bailing out' these large banks did NOTHING for the financial infrastructure of the USA. The monies these large banks received went to pay off foreign investments and debts. These banks 'stabilized' foreign markets and foreign infrastructure.

When the people of the USA were screaming they couldn't get mortgages even after the spending of $700 billion, it was because there was 'no interest' by these banks to finance housing in the USA.

Now, think about this.

If you had a bank roll of money and the housing market was flooded with homes that were chronically losing value, would you lend into that market in hopes of achieving a 'positive' bottom line?

I wouldn't. Not if I were the CEO of Goldman Sachs. I'd be looking for 'stabilized' markets for reinvestment after I paid off my debts to them. Yes?

So.

The Grand Illusion, this time, is that while Wall Street watches their indexes increase they are laughing at the struggling USA and the 'befuddled' public that actually provided their monies for a return on their investments.

Pretty lousy stuff, if you ask me. But, who ever asks me.

The banks that were loaned all those billions from the USA Treasury need to return it and return it as soon as possible. See, if the American people are funding their own recovery through instruments with government guarantees then we need all those funds back in order to go forward with 'reinvestment' into the USA.

The people of the USA are 'left' to recover their country completely on their own. We need to get our minds around that fact and begin to address our best outcome through instruments within our own possibilities. We don't need foreign investment, we need domestic investment. We don't need huge investment banks or otherwise, we need banks that are well run and well invested into local economies.

There needs to be regulation as proposed by the current US Treasury Secretary, but, more than that there needs to be rules governing the banks that invest domestically. I don't see the USA ever taking this step ever again. I do see the USA seeking to fund banks that will do business exclusively within the borders of the USA.

To recover the USA domestically, invest locally. Fund the recovery of local economies and seek rates of return that are reasonable to the best outcomes of those economies. The 'growth' the people of the USA is seeking won't be found by 'bailing out' international entities. That needs to be left up to Dubai.

Local economies funded by local financial instruments that have an active interest in the best outcomes of those economies, backed by the FDIC.

DO NOT ALLOW 'International Investment Firms or Banks' access to funding of local economies. They'll suck you dry. The US Treasury Secretary needs to stop funding 'international banking infrastructure' and fund domestic banks with potential of rebuilding local economies. I am sure that is far less 'glamorous' than any other option, but, it is a matter of sovereignty.

The words of treason:

Bernanke: World Beginning To Emerge From Financial Crisis (click here)
August 21, 2009 3:52 p.m. EST

"The world has been through the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression," Bernanke told the summit. "The crisis in turn sparked a deep global recession, from which we are only now beginning to emerge."

The world is doing better than the USA according to THE FEDERAL RESERVE Chairman. Since when is THE WORLD included in the sovereign interests of the USA? And this, while our own banks and economy continue to suffer?

I don't think so.

"Bill" has been quite a mover. I hate to say I told you so, but,...what the heck...I told you so.

August 22, 2009
1800 gmt
Atlantic Ocean Satellite Image (click here for 18 hour loop)


August 22, 2009
1730z
UNISYS Water Vapor GOES East Satellite (click here for 12 hour loop)

I hope all those that 'cared' to notice did so with an open mind. I am 'dead serious' about the issue of 'surface water vapor.' Hurricane Bill is a 'case in point' to realize where storms are not finding 'water vapor' at Earth's surface to power their velocities.

The 2009 hurricane season is worse than 2007. The 'hurricane season' now extends into December and January, but, the most severe storms don't occur after the first week to ten days of September. There is a small window of time for 2009 to still propagate a strong storm, but, the Atlantic Ocean Satellite at the top of the entry doesn't show much promise of that.

Earth has become so limited in its moisture availability, the Intertropical Convergence Zone is the one place where there is still enough water vapor to 'power up' these vital storms. Realizing that also brings to the forefront the reality the tropics are drying up. To say we need a Climate Policy is understating the emergency this planet is facing. We not only need a Climate policy, we need it now !

"Family premiums are going up three time faster than inflation and wages..." (click title to entry - thank you)

This is not a pre-programmed announcement.

The media is getting too 'interpretive' of every word the President, his cabinet and staff say.

Never once in all the words I heard President Obama speak did I ever hear him say he did not favor a Public Option.

The media is chronically misinterpreting the President, primarily because it gives them something to talk about.

There is also the mistake that 'The President's Staff or Cabinet' speaks for him. I have never found that to be the case. Obama is as Obama does. Just that simple. I understand the way he contextualizes 'emphasis' to 'accent' a 'specific faux pas' by others somewhat focused on one aspect of a legislation or topic.

Okay.

...Obama insisted Sebelius had not misspoken, and asserted that "the press got a little excited and some folks on the left got excited" and had misinterpreted both her meaning and Obama's intentions. He insisted his position has not changed, that he supported a public option, but also that this option was only one part of a larger group of choices. Obama added that he and Sebelius agreed that "all these other insurance reforms are just as important as the public option."...

There is an interesting point to be made at page 149, lines 14-24.

SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.
IN GENERAK.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—

There is a provision in the bill which would allow employers to contribute to the Health Choices Commission without opting for any insurance option. In other words, employers don't have to participate in any insurance, but, they would have to pay a penalty. The bill likes to call it a contribution, but, it isn't optional, so its a penalty. Those penalties would go directly into the trust fund and would not be used for paying for any insurance. A penalty is a penalty. Nothing else to say.

Page 150, line 8 begins "Special Rules for Small Employers"

This provision does the same thing except it adds increments to the size of the penalty depending on the annual payroll of the small employer. Of course any of these 'contributions/penalities' are to inspire businesses of any size to have health insurance for their employees, rather than having it fall to the government/public option. That's another thing, if the House Bill was interested in 'taking over' health insurance it would not penalize employers whom do not supply health insurance, it would simply tax them across the board depending on the number of employees and their annual salary payouts.

That is not what is occurring.

The bill obviously wants employers to have health insurance for their employees. It is the traditional method of accessing health care and usually results in fair prices for a group.

So the penalty/contribution for small businesses breaks down into annual salaries paid with 0% for employers that do not pay more than $250,000. The next increment is $250,000 to $300,000 which would be a 2% contribution. Then $300,000 to $350,000 with a contribution of 4% and finally $350,000 to $400,000 which asks for contribution of 6%.

The bill goes on to define more of the terms, state what a violation of this provision would be and the result, (no jail time, just fines/contributions), periodic investigations for non-compliance (assuming employees are making a complaint or feel compromised to complain for fear of losing their jobs), and the definition of what exactly is considered "health coverage participation requirements.' There are more definitions and provisions for full time vs part time employees, and the Secretary may formulate regulations to secure this part of the provision for the bill.

The primary penalty is stated to be a maximum of $100 per day from the day of the infraction to the day it is corrected. No penalty where it is obvious the employer was exerting due diligence to remedy the non-compliance and there is no penalty if the employer corrects the non-compliance within 30 days. This penalty will be assigned to a maximum of $500,000. Now, $100 per day may seem like nothing to some, but, for small employers $100 per day is considerable. There is even a provision that requires a coordination of any excise tax from the Income Tax Code, so there is no duplication of penalites. All penalties will of course be assigned to the USA Treasury. Won't that be something, huh? The USA Treasury is actually going to have an income other than that of Bernanke's printing press.

Then after all that non-compliance mess, there comes a provision on Page 160, beginning with line 1 through 14 that states:

SEC. 323. SATISFACTION OF HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.
IN GENERAL.—Part C of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
SEC. 2793. NATIONAL HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.
ELECTION OF EMPLOYER TO BE SUBJECT TO NATIONAL HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.—
IN GENERAL.—An employer may make an election with the Secretary to be subject to the health coverage participation requirements.

This of course is the election by an employer to provide health insurance for their employees. That is after all what this bill is all about. This bill is not about ONLY creating a Public Option with yet to be known participating physicians, but, it is to 'cause' every employer to supply health insurance to their employees with shared costs. And it has to be good insurance that is 'reasonable' to the coverage it offers. The employers are not left to the vultures that would see them play pheonomenally high premiums. After all there is a percentage of the premiums paid by the employee, so the bill provides for a pool of health insurance options to choose from for employers, if they so need that.

Each plan will state within the policy purchased by the employer that it satisfies the requirements of the bill. So there. The employers don't have to guess that a particular policy will satisfy the requirements of the bill, any 'options' employers are seeking MUST state within the policy itself they meet standards. Then it just becomes a comparison of prices and increased options such as adding vision or dental, etc. Basically insurance purchasing 'made easy.'

There will be periodic investigations by the Secretary to garner an understanding of compliance within the community of employers participating in the health insurance to employees aspect of the bill. That investigation will result in a discovery as to the compliance somewhat of the employer, but, more the compliance of the insurance provider so long as the policy states it reflects all requirements by the new law. The liability for such non-compliance can't really be that of the employer, so long as the employer is acting in good faith, but, more the insurance companies that have not provided a product that meets government standards.

The bill provides for a 'mix' of health insurance policies to be purchased by the employer providing for Full Time and Less than Full Time employees.

I have a little problem with this provision. Page 162, lines 7 through 14.

TERMINATION OF ELECTION IN CASES OF SUBSTANTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE.—The Secretary may terminate the election of any employer under subsection (a) if the Secretary (in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) determines that such employer is in sub stantial noncompliance with the health coverage participation requirements and shall refer any such determination to the Secretary of the Treasury as appropriate.

The problem I have with that is on one hand the bill is stating any health insurance has to state as a 'certification' if you will that the policy is in compliance with the law. Yet, if upon investigation the employer can be designated as "Substantial Noncompliance" and automatically rendered to pay 'contributions/penalties.' Follow? If the health insurance company is certifying the product they are selling an employer meets federal standards, then it should be the insurance company that is brought on charges of fraud. Unless there was a specific policy written for an employer at the request of a company that bends the rules enough to be in somewhat compliance but not complete compliance, then it has to be the insurance company that is 'chargred.' And I do believe the charge has to be fraud with penalities of fines and potentially prison for those that are defrauding an employer. I am assuming the employer is acting in good faith to secure the 'proper' health insurance. I think that provision needs to be reworked to have the responsibilty fall on the insurance company and not the employers. That would assign the employer to 'contributions/penalities' for a time that might be unbearable to the employer.

The bill goes on to define penalties, however, it is still my point of view that once an insurance company that has certified their policy meets federal standards FAILS to achieve that standard, it is not the employer that is 'criminal' and subject to fines and prison, but, the insurance company and to take it a step further. When the insurance company is found to be selling a product that is out of compliance with the federal law, there are also civil remedies by the employees that were to be covered. In other words, the employer having acted in good faith, is not liable either criminally or civily, but, the insurance company that is both criminally and civilly liable to those that were to be covered according to federal law. Employees would have civil remedies to be paid for services they may have paid for out of pocket that were not theirs to pay.

The bill provides for multi-employer health insurance plans. Good idea. If employers with $500,000 in salaries paid annually can be in a pool with other employers of the same size or smaller or larger the base of support for the health insurance carrier widens and the premiums will be less.

Oh, there is also tax on individuals without 'acceptable health care coverage.' Page 167, lines 5 through 17:

TITLE IV—AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility

PART 1—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:
‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES

‘‘SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

That is kind of a big deal, because, there are going to be those folks that will state, "I don't want health insurance." The problem is will the Supreme Court actually hold them responsible for having such insurance, and it is my estimation they will. Why? Because, the people that are 'non-compliant' with their health insurance coverage put burdens on the rest of the citizens that seek to be law abiding with the intent of containing and even lowering health care costs to garner lower insurance costs. I believe, unless a citizen can provide proof of enough personal wealth whereby they can be exempt from having health insurance, the promise of a better health insurance premium to the nation will have more legal weight than someone who simply 'dumps' responsibility on society for their health care costs.

continued below...

continued from previous entry

Page 167, lines 18 through 23 and Page 168, lines 1 through 4:

‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. ...upto the extent said citizen would have paid a premium for health insurance or any portion thereof, if not insured for a fraction of the calender year.

I think that is fairly self explanatory.

This is interesting. Page 170, lines 1 through 3. Non-Resident Aliens are included in the bill therefore they will have no penalties as they will have no legislated benefits. Hello?

‘‘(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien.

There are provisions for USA citizens living in USA possessions or outside the USA. They are treated as legal citizens and are provided for under this bill.

The religiously 'inclined' are not impressed to submit to this bill. Page 170, lines 19 though 25 and Page 170, lines 1 through 4. It includes the relief of responsibility for health insurance of their children as well. We all know there are times when children are taken into 'state custody' to provide health care and when that happens, it is the State that provides for the cost as well. So, this really isn't anything earth shaking, except, they are not pressed into civilian obligation where it intersects with religious belief. That religious affiliation has to be documentable to the Secretary.

‘‘(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.

The bill goes on redundantly stating the same definitions apply and provisions apply, yada, yada, yada. It does say on Page 175 there won't be actions taken against 'minimis lapses of time.' There are provisions for penalties if one fails to file their health care compliance on tax forms. More definitions and compliance issues including the allowance of different instruments for full time and less than full time employees. Reiteration of the same provisions and definitions just for this section of the bill. There is a fair amount of redundancy simply because it is stated for each provision of the bill. It has to be. It is a binding legal document that will impact people's lives, so it has to be clear.

There are provisions beginning on Page 188, line 19 for small businesses:

‘‘SEC. 45R. SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE HEALTH COVERAGE CREDIT.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of section 38, in the case of a qualified small employer, the small business employee health coverage credit determined under this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to the applicable percentage of the qualified employee health coverage
expenses of such employer for such taxable year.

‘‘(b) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the applicable percentage is 50 percent.
‘‘(2) PHASEOUT BASED ON AVERAGE COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES.—In the case of an employer whose average annual employee compensation for the taxable year exceeds $20,000, the percentage specified in paragraph (1) shall be reduced by a number of percentage points which bears the same ratio to 50 as such excess bears to $20,000.
‘‘(c) LIMITATIONS.—
‘‘(1) PHASEOUT BASED ON EMPLOYER SIZE.—In the case of an employer who employs more than 10 qualified employees during the taxable year, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be reduced by an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of such credit (determined without regard to this paragraph and after the application ofthe other provisions of this section) as—

I believe what this section states, is there is a 50% credit for small businesses that employ few people of have a small payroll. These businesses can take a credit as much as 50% of the cost of the insurance. As an example, let's say an employer has 10 people he employs and the annual health care cost is $60,000 for his family and that of his employees. This policy has been purchased from a pool whereby there are many more employers subscribing to the same 'certified plan.' The employer would be able to take an additional $30,000 CREDIT for simply going through the trouble of insuring themselves and their employees. I am fairly sure that is how that reads. It's nice. Can't complain about that.

There would be an exception to that in an employee that was making a salary of $80,000 which places them above the $68,000 that would qualify them for compensated care; cannot be taken as a credit to the employer as the individual can provide for their own health insurance at that income level.

Page 192, lines 11 through 19 provide for self employed and partnerships:

‘‘(1) SPECIAL RULE FOR PARTNERSHIPS AND SELF-EMPLOYED.—In the case of a partnership (or a trade or business carried on by an individual) which has one or more qualified employees (determined without regard to this paragraph) with respect to whom the election under 4980H(a) applies, each partner (or, in the case of a trade or business carried on by an individual, such individual) shall be treated as an employee.

There are further definitions of Aggrigate Rule, Denial of Double Benefit, Inflation Adjustment and Credit to be part of a General Business Credit. Primarily all this is substitution of existing language in other codes of government law.

I'll stop there for now. The next section starts, "Disclosures to Carry Out Health Insurance Exchange Subsidies."

I really see this as a well thought out legislation. I believe it covers details I would not have expected and it does it with a great deal of care knowing people's health are tied to its passage as law. I like the bill. I like it alot. It is security.

Tomorrow is another day.

Localize economies and DO NOT look back. - click title to entry for video - thank you

Updated: 11:42 PM Aug 18, 2009
Buying Locally Can Boost Your Local Economy (click title to entry - thank you)
If you want to help your local economy get into an upswing, you may want to try buying locally. Experts say buying from independently owned stores pumps 20 percent more money back into your community than buying from a big box.

"...a grassroots stimulus plan."

TEXT: Bernanke's speech at Jackson Hole Fed conference (click title to entry - thank you)

..."One very clear lesson of the past year--no surprise, of course, to any student of economic history, but worth noting nonetheless--is that a full-blown financial crisis can exact an enormous toll in both human and economic terms. A second lesson--once again, familiar to economic historians--is that financial disruptions do not respect borders. The crisis has been global, with no major country having been immune."...

There is something "W"rong with this picture !!!!!

How does economic recovery occur while banks are still failing on a daily basis?

Huh?

Bernanke can answer that, right?

Or NOT ?!?!?!!?

Meredith Whitney Predicts More Than 300 Bank Failures (Update1) (click here)
By Lynn Thomasson and Margaret Brennan
Aug. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Meredith Whitney, the analyst who predicted that Citigroup Inc. would cut its dividend last year, said the number of U.S. bank failures will quadruple as lenders struggle with bad loans.
“There will be over 300 bank closures,” Whitney said in an interview with Bloomberg Television from Jackson Hole, Wyoming. “The small-business owner on Main Street continues to see liquidity come away.”
Unemployment has risen to the highest since the early 1980s and Americans are falling behind on mortgage payments at a record pace, forcing regulators to seize 77 lenders in 2009, the most in 17 years. Colonial BancGroup Inc. was closed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and taken over by BB&T Corp. on Aug. 14 in the biggest failure since Washington Mutual Inc. collapsed in 2008....

The plan is to let more USA banks fail. What happened? The jerks on Wall Street, like AIG and Goldman Sachs get their asses in a sling, get a free pass on USA Treasury dollars and then proceed to let every other bank attempting to tread water to fail. Like. What the ?Z!#*(! is that?

Hoenig Stirs Debate on Bank Failures as Fed Forum Convenes (click here)
By Scott Lanman

Aug. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The host for central bankers attending the Federal Reserve conference this weekend to discuss the financial crisis is a regional Fed chief who’s making waves with his proposal for letting big U.S. banks fail.
Thomas Hoenig, the Kansas City Fed president, will welcome Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet and dozens of other central bankers to the annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, starting today. Hoenig said he hopes the gathering will serve as a model for handling crises in the future.
Bernanke has urged Congress to back part of Hoenig’s proposal for dealing with faltering big banks, which would wipe out shareholder equity in any that receive government aid. The Treasury Department’s so-called resolution authority plan, while likely to result in stockholder losses, doesn’t require it....

When the hell is someone going to dump Bernanke !?!?!?!!

You know the guy.

The one that said putting $1 trillion US into the 'cash stream' would give everyone all the tools they would need.

THAT GUY !

NewsWatch
Aug 15, 2009, 9:00 a.m. EST
Colonial becomes biggest bank failure of 2009 (click here)

BB&T takes over after FDIC shuts Alabama lender at cost of $2.8 billion

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Colonial BancGroup Inc. has become the largest bank failure this year as the 2009 toll of financial institutions approaches 80.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation seized the struggling Alabama-based lender Friday and sold it to BB&T Corp.
Late Friday, the FDIC announced four other banks had been closed: Community Bank of Nevada and its Arizona subsidiary, Community Bank of Arizona; Union Bank, Gilbert, Ariz; and Dwelling House Savings and Loan Association, Pittsburgh.
The Colonial BancGroup deal will knock roughly $2.8 billion off a pool of money, known as the Deposit Insurance Fund, which the FDIC maintains to guarantee bank customer deposits.
BB&T /quotes/comstock/13*!bbt/quotes/nls/bbt (BBT 28.10, +0.32, +1.15%) agreed to assume all of Colonial's deposits, which totaled about $20 billion at the end of June, the FDIC said. Depositors of Colonial will automatically become depositors of BB&T and customers can continue accessing their money by writing checks or using ATMs and debit cards, the regulator stressed....

This is the BEST part.

Ready?

Bank Failures in the United States (click here)

Aug 20, 2009 - 05:02 PM
By: Global_Research

Bob Chapman writes: We had a bank go on Thursday and now we have a continuation of the Friday Night FDIC Financial Follies. Federal and state regulators closed two small Arizona banks Friday evening, but depositors won't feel any pain....

...Much to their dismay, Americans learned last year that they ‘owned’ Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Well, meet their cousin, Ginnie Mae or the Government National Mortgage Association, which will soon join them as a trillion-dollar packager of subprime mortgages. Taxpayers own Ginnie too. Only last week, Ginnie announced that it issued a monthly record of $43 billion in mortgage-backed securities in June. Ginnie Mae President Joseph Murin sounded almost giddy as he cheered this ‘phenomenal growth.’ Ginnie Mae’s mortgage exposure is expected to top $1 trillion by the end of next year—or far more than double the dollar amount of 2007. Ginnie’s mission is to bundle, guarantee and then sell mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration, which is Uncle Sam’s home mortgage shop. Ginnie’s growth is a by-product of the FHA’s spectacular growth. The FHA now insures $560 billion of mortgages—quadruple the amount in 2006. Among the FHA, Ginnie, Fannie and Freddie, nearly nine of every 10 new mortgages in America now carry a federal taxpayer guarantee....

Maybe it wasn't clear enough, so, I'll mention it again.

...nearly nine of every 10 new mortgages in America now carry a federal taxpayer guarantee....

Just because Bubba Bernanke says things are looking up, doesn't mean it is. It's just that everyone else is too blasted scared to argue with him.

"We want our money back." - Click title of entry for trailer - thank you.

I had the profound pleasure this year to be at Traverse City Film Festival from the time the "Friends" rolled out their "Pot Luck Dinner" to the "Closing Night Party." The Traverse City Film Festival was celebrating its fifth year of "Just good films,' but, for the people that have been there from its inception, it was an astounding week.

In a year where 'believers' were worried, the film festival would be struggling to make ends meet, it actually experienced a 37% increase in sponsorships.

Nice. The TCFF is a cultural icon for many reasons, but, it has been a solice for those of us that sincerely believe in 'equitable democracy.'

I attended "Mike's Surprise" and he kindly showed us the trailer to the film, "Capitalism, A Love Story," while it still had all the edits noted in the film loop. I loved the trailer then and now when I see it complete, I can't wait to see the movie.

I will review the movies I attended at the TCFF one of these evenings, but, currently I believe my time is best served reading the tenative House Bill for Health Insurance Reform and hopefully bring a perspective that is not at all talked about in the media, especially the Right Wing mess.

Enjoy the trailer. I've only played it about seven times so far.

Two of the happiest people in Afghanistan. A run off election will be exciting. Click title to entry for video.

Dr. Abdullah Abdullah and President Hamid Karzai

...Partial preliminary results won't be made public before Tuesday, as Afghanistan and the dozens of countries with troops and aid organizations in the country wait to see who will lead the troubled nation for the next five years. The next president faces an agenda filled with crises: rising insurgent violence, rampant corruption and a huge narcotics trade.
Both sides said their candidate was ahead in the count. Officials with the country's Independent Election Commission said it was too early for any campaign to claim itself the winner. Counting at individual polling sites has been completed, but ballots are now being sent to Kabul, election officials said....

NASA's first images of "Bill," "Ana," and "Claudette. August 17, 2009. Click title to entry, thank you.

"Bill" is losing contact with the water vapor of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone. In losing contact with its water vapor source the velocity is slowing. I remain somewhat skeptical of the continued northern vs. western movement of "Bill." If there is a slowing in the velocity there may not be enough speed to propel the storm north so much as a meander to the west and into South Carolina. It will be interesting to watch the progression. But, here again, the further north the storm moves the less velocity it has. If "Bill" were to become a 'near shore' storm it could have the chance of increasing its velocity and decreasing its central pressure again.


August 21, 2009
1630z
UNISYS Infrared GOES East Satellite (click here for 12 hour loop)

...On August 17, 2009, at 1:31 p.m. EST, the latest NASA/NOAA geostationary weather satellite, called GOES-14, returned its first full-disk thermal infrared (IR) image, showing radiation with a wavelength of 10.7 micrometers emanating from Earth. Infrared images are useful because they provide information about temperatures. A wavelength of 10.7 micrometers is 15 times longer than the longest wavelength of light (red) that people can see, but scientists can turn the data into a picture by having a computer display cold temperatures as bright white and hot temperatures as black. The hottest (blackest) features in the scene are land surfaces; the coldest (whitest) features in the scene are clouds....

Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi needs to apologize for the exuberance shown by the family and friends of a dying man.

Libya has come a long way since the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. It has become transparent for the sake of fostering peace. Right now The West would like to demonize all that is transpiring in Libya with the return of the only convicted man responsible for this heinous act.

It would be far better if Libya's al-Gaddafi would come forward during Ramadan to purge the sins of such people that plot evil acts against other human beings of other faiths.

Ramadan is a time of accounting. It is time Libya made an example of one of her own in an accounting of a former terrorist state.


Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi

...Al-Megrahi (click title to entry), believed to have less than three months to live, was released on the order of Scotland’s justice minister despite strong opposition from the United States, which had campaigned to keep him in prison.
Pan Am Flight 103 was carrying 189 Americans when it left London for New York on Dec. 21, 1988. In all, 259 people on board and 11 on the ground were killed in the bombing.
“He is a dying man, he is terminally ill,” Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill told reporters in explanation. “My decision is that he returns home to die.”
In a statement issued by his lawyer after his departure from Glasgow Airport, Al-Megrahi said that he was innocent and had been wrongly jailed, but also thanked the people of Scotland for setting him free.
“To those victims’ relatives who can bear to hear me say this: they continue to have my sincere sympathy for the unimaginable loss that they have suffered,” he said. “Those who bear me ill will, I do not return that to you.
“This horrible ordeal is not ended by my return to Libya. It may never end for me until I die. Perhaps the only liberation for me will be death.”...


Ramadan begins on SaturdayArab News (click here)
JEDDAH: The holy month of Ramadan will start on Saturday, according to a Royal Court statement on Thursday.
“As no crescent sighting was reported on Thursday evening, Friday will be the 30th day of Shaaban and Saturday, the 22nd of August, will be the first day of the holy month of Ramadan,” the Royal Court quoted a statement of the Supreme Court as saying.
The Supreme Court met at its summer headquarters in Taif on Thursday, the Saudi Press Agency reported.

Saudi Arabia arrests 44 suspected militants (click here)
APPublished: August 19, 2009, 17:05
Riyadh: The Saudi Interior Ministry says authorities have arrested 44 suspected militants who sought to recruit youths and finance their "deviant activities" through charitable donations.
In a statement carried Wednesday by the official Saudi Press Agency, the ministry says the 44 were arrested in a campaign that began July 9 and ended August 2.
It says some of those arrested have received training on the use of light and heavy weapons in the kingdom and abroad. It says all but one are Saudi.
Saudi Arabia has pursued an aggressive campaign against militants since May 2003, when they first began attacks in the kingdom. The country is the birthplace of Al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and home to 15 of the 19th September 11 hijackers.

"Bill" and 12 hour loop - click here, thank you.

The storm couldn't hold together, so the diameter became wider and the central pressure dropped somewhat to maintain the 'eye.' Wow. It is about the fourth the diameter of the Atlantic Ocean. It will lose that width, but, maintain the velocity with a smaller 'eye.' It is still pulling water vapor off the tropics. It just that its 'eye' is getting further away from its water vapor source. It's interesting.

August 21, 2009

0330z

UNISYS Water Vapor Satellite

Day After Tomorrow. Today the trees, tomorrow, hm??????

August 19, 2009, 12:14 pm
Updated: 5:05 pm
By Sewell Chan AND Sarah Maslin Nir
Storm Toppled Scores of Trees in Central Park (click title to entry - thank you)
...“Central Park has been devastated,” Adrian Benepe, the city parks commissioner, said in an interview on Wednesday morning. “It created more damage than I’ve seen in 30 years of working in the parks.”
Mr. Benepe added: “Some areas have had an almost total loss of trees. The Great Hill, the area around West 106th Street, has very large American elm trees. In that one area, several dozen trees went down.”...

It's that time again. Time to read more of the House Bill for Health Insurance Reform. What amazing wonders will I find this time?

Ya gotta love Barney Frank. He was beautiful. "So what planet do you spend most of your time?" Loved it ! Go get 'em Barney ! How can anyone believe a person that demands to be recognized as someone that refers to the President of the USA as a Nazi? She can't be taken serious. She lost her legitimacy as she turned her statements into hate mongering. It can't be tolerated.


...Under this scenario (click title to entry - thank you), one bill would include the new regulations on insurance companies, such as requiring them not to reject people with preexisting conditions. As conservative opposition to reform has grown at so-called town hall protests this month, President Obama and others have been pushing these regulations as the key lynchpins to reform that would help those with and those without insurance. It is thought these measures could get the more than 60 votes in the Senate needed to survive through any filibuster threat....



Under the House Health Insurance Reform Bill there will enrollments procedures (starting on page 97). They basically look like any other enrollment procedure one would find with an employer. There are special considerations, no different than the private sector, for special circumstances including birth of a child, adoption, marriage with some extra provisions by the bill such as a move outside the service area for a provider, significant change of income and the like. It goes on to say there will be automatic enrollment in one plan or another for people ineligible for Medicaid with 'affordibility' credits upon application for them and acceptance into a program. The bill also states, all plans will be paid directly to the provider and not through the government.

All these provisions are regarding Exchange Eligible people. There is a lot of willingness to have contact with people in need and there will be a website set up to help them in their choices and enrollment, a toll free number, etc. Basically, the bill is making every effort to enroll Americans in a health insurance option that will be appropriate for their eligibility.

I had wondered how this bill would impact SCHIP. There are children in the country with coverage as members of low income families, with parents that cannot afford health insurance. There is a section on page 100 that begins to discuss the provisions of SCHIP. This section also makes it completely clear the health insurance plans are for those born IN the USA.

Page 100, lines 20 through 25 and Page 101, lines 1 through 13.

SPECIAL DUTIES RELATED TO MEDICAID AND CHIP.—
COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN NEWBORNS.—
IN GENERAL.—In the case of a child born in the United States who at the time of birth is not otherwise covered under acceptable coverage, for the period of time beginning on the date of birth and ending on the date the child otherwise is covered under acceptable coverage (or, if earlier, the end of the month in which the 60-day period, beginning on the date of birth, ends), the child shall be deemed— (i) to be a non-traditional Medicaid eligible individual (as defined in subsection (e)(5)) for purposes of this division and Medicaid; and (ii) to have elected to enroll in Medicaid through the application of paragraph 13 (3).

Basically, the health insurance reform bill sides with coverage first and placement of future benefits later. If the parents already have insurance then this section would not apply, but, for those parents (I am thinking primarily new parents.) that do not have health insurance in place when the child is born, then the child will be covered until the time the family can address a plan for coverage.

In regard to SCHIP, it is my estimation that once 'families' are covered there will be children coming off SCHIP to be covered under their family's plan. In receiving coverage as a family, that will relieve the States of some of their programs that cover children as well and assist State budgets to balance without additional burden's of health care for children. That is my understanding to some of this.

There is also a provision within this bill for children currently enrolled through Social Security. A child with such benefits will become automatically 'Exchange eligible' unless the child is already eligible for Medicaid, there would be no further need to qualify. See, there is going to be some shifting of government liability depending on the enrollment status of those served on other government programs.

The bill goes on to say, that the enrollment in Medicaid or in a health insurance on The Exchange remains fluid should eligibility change over time. In other words, if a child is receiving benefits under Medicaid, but, becomes eligible for the Exchange as their parents now have that option, the child can move into a family plan unless the income of the parents dictate the child to be enrolled in Medicaid. Should circumstances change and let's say the parent(s) become unemployed or disabled, the child will always be covered by one method or another. I think what we will see with The Exchange is that parents working in lower paying jobs will qualify for insurance of one kind or another and will be able to include their children on their own insurance plans. Today, the care of children falls to the States or SCHIP without the benefit of parent(s) being covered. I believe that will change.

There will be a Special Inspector General as defined on Page 107, starting with line 18:

DUTIES.—The Special Inspector General shall — conduct, supervise, and coordinate au21
dits, evaluations and investigations of the Health Insurance Exchange to protect the integrity of the Health Insurance Exchange, as well as the health and welfare of participants in the Exchange;

The really interesting aspect to this bill, which can't be appreciated unless one is reading the entire bill personally, are the number of 'past' legislations (existing law) that comes into play in one method of another in this bill. It is as though we, as a nation, have been inching up to this for some time now and this consolidates all the aspects of health care to date in a clear venue of inclusiveness. I sincerely believe this bill consolidates all the past legislative efforts into one clear concise venue. In doing that, there will be a lot of 'duplicity' that will stop with the passage of the bill. This bill isn't nearly as expensive as it seems right now. This bill appears to be very careful to include all citizens at all levels of need or interest without exception, but, I believe in time will trim spending in other areas and absorb much of the other laws it cites. The House was very thorough in their inclusion of all relevant, existing laws.

Page 109, lines 4 through 6: TERMINATION.—The Office of the Special Inspector General shall terminate five years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Excellant and exactly what I thought this provision was about. See, this bill is so 'careful' in the inclusion of every American citizen it provides a Special Inspector General of oversee the 'start up' of the program. Imagine being a legislator in DC and writing a historical bill such as this is and then find out because of some stupid loophole or lack of wording someone dies when they should have been included under the new law. Imagine how that weighs on the people of the House that wrote these provisions? By providing 'extra help' for the start up of this new law, there will be no losses or misunderstandings. Concise deployment of the law and accounting for the cost and use allowed under the law will be handled by an exclusive office that has oversight while providing oversight. The new law is really intended to streamline health insurance and its cost at every turn. I like it.

Page 109, lines 16 through 21.

PAYMENTS FROM TRUST FUND.—The Commissioner shall pay from time to time from the Trust Fund such amounts as the Commissioner determines are necessary to make payments to operate the Health Insurance Exchange, including payments under subtitle C (relating to affordability credits).

The new law provides for a separate trust fund to be used for expenses exclusive to The Exchange and the operations of the administration of the new law. This trust fund will receive all the taxes and fines from those people that do not abide by the law by subscribing to a health insurance company. Those taxes and fines will be for individuals and companies that are not in complicance with the law. The law doesn't seem to rely on any punitive measures such as prison to reach compliance. If individuals or companies choose to pay the excise tax rather than being in compliance that is their option. There are specific sections of the IRS Tax Code stated in relation to the Trust Fund where monies would be applied and enforced.

Like I said, they were very thorough in their writing of this bill.

There are provisions for States to set up their own health insurance exchanges if State legislators care to engage the issue. The States can even regionalize their exchange if they feel they can provide better than the federal government. However, the State Exchanges have to pass an approval process to be sure they are offering equivalent options at comparable costs or less.

continued below...

continued from above...

If I am reading this correctly, when it comes to the State Exchange, it would have to allow for portability of insurance over State boundaries IF the State Exchange was indeed regionalized and operating under one authority. The law does limit 'One Exchange" per State and it cannot add expenses to the federal government in operation or creation of any State Health Insurance Exchange. There cannot be any degradation of services under a State or Regional Exchange. If the Exchange were found to provide less benefits or fail its citizens in any manner; all or part of the Exchange could be stopped and returned to the Federal Authority.

Here again, the bill serves the people of the country and not any fiscal entity that would benefit from the new law it creates. At the forefront of any of this legislation is the citizen and their needs in health insurance reform. The House should be proud of their dedication to the 'best outcome' for Americans outlined in this bill. It is carefully stated to keep 'the people/person' the focus of the law. The Federal Government gives up no authority to retain any of the provisions for its authority regardless of a State or Regional Exchange. That is how it will maintain its oversight to such programs until they are found to be sound and citizens are protected with viability. It's a good thing.

Page 116, Lines 1 through 17, sets up The Public Option for health insurance. This is the beginning paragraph:

Subtitle B—Public Health Insurance Option
SEC. 221. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION AS AN EXCHANGE-QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.
ESTABLISHMENT.—For years beginning with Y1, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall provide for the offering of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (in this division referred to as the ‘‘public health insurance option’’) that ensures choice, competition, and stability of affordable, high quality coverage throughout the United States in accordance with this subtitle. In designing the option, the Secretary’s primary responsibility is to create a low-cost plan without comprimising quality or access to care.

It provides for all the same options within any other insurance offered at The Exchange. This option is to be marketed at The Exchange. It provides for data collection to set rates and prices. This is the paragraph on Page 118, lines 4 through 9:

DATA COLLECTION.—The Secretary shall collect such data as may be required to establish premiums and payment rates for the public health insurance option and for other purposes under this subtitle, including to improve quality and to reduce racial, ethnic, and other disparities in health and health care.

This data will become an information bank for all health insurance companies. If insurance companies want to sincerely compete in the market place they will have to take into consideration the statistics that will come out of the public option in health insurance. If the companies are to compete for the business of the people taking the public option they will have to come to understand who and why they fall under this provision of the law. Once they understand the 'populous' that subscribes to the public option they can begin to taylor more of their own products to meet the needs of those accepting the public option.

This provision is especially interesting. It provides for access to federal courts to assure Medicare participants they will not lose rights under this new law. Page 118, lines 14 through 22:

ACCESS TO FEDERAL COURTS.—The provisions of Medicare (and related provisions of title II of the Social Security Act) relating to access of Medicare beneficiaries to Federal courts for the enforcement of rights under Medicare, including with respect to amounts in controversy, shall apply to the public health insurance option and individuals enrolled under such option under this title in the same manner as such provisions apply to Medicare and Medicare beneficiaries.

I see this provision as a means for 'interest groups' such as AARP to litigate any complaints their members might have. Of course, individuals can always bring suit if necessary, but, more than likely if there is something about the law that impinges on the rights of Medicare recipients it will happen in larger numbers than an individual. So this provision would be of particular interest to 'interest groups' as a method to protect their members.

The section regarding The Public Option goes on for quite a few pages. It discusses the particulars of how the option will provide for people. Of most concern so far is the establishment of a provider network that will accept payments under this option. It is based in the rates Medicare pays, however, the Secretary has the authority to increase said payments to providers if there are too few providers for any geographic area. The idea is to have established by Y 4 payments that will support a provider network for this option. That is upto page 124.

There are going to be two levels of physicians. There is to be no compromise in the quality of care or the quality of physicans. But, the two levels are delineation in relation to payment. Page 127, lines 1 through 16. These are levels of physicans for the Public Option.

PHYSICIANS.—The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished during the year, in one of 2 classes:
PREFERRED PHYSICIANS.—Those physicians who agree to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.
PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED PHYSICIANS.—Those physicians who agree not to impose charges (in relation to the payment rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act.

The cost for the Public Option will be based on "Affordability Credit." The Affordability Credit will be applied for by persons unable to pay for the entire premium they fall under or their family falls under. The funds to make up the difference will come from the Trust Fund. The Trust Fund must maintain a 90 day balance of funds in the Exchange for anticipated expenditures. Those funds can be appropriated from the General Treasury initially, but, constituted from payments from individuals or companies. That brings us to page 130 of the bill.

During Y1 and Y2 the Affordibility Credit can only be used on the Basic Option. After Y3 the credits can be expanded to other levels of care, however, the difference between the credit and the price of the policy has to be paid by the insured. At no point in time will an Affordibility Credit be transacted into a rebate or refund for cash. They are strickly for the use of purchasing health insurance. The Affordibility Credit is applied to families with incomes 400 percent of the Federal poverty level (or if my math is correct approximately $68,000). The term family may exclude divorced or separated couples depending on their income while raising the family alone. And the term 'income' is to Adjusted Gross Income. There is a formula to apply for calculating the amount a family would pay over a one year plan. Those payments will be broken down into 1/12th of the total to be paid monthly. Not all plans may survive the implementation of the law. If there is limited enrollment of any of the plans, those plans may be dropped from the funding.

Page 137, lines 1 through 3 provides for the scale of premiums for people receiveing Affordibility Credits. The table is on Page 137, to transfer the table here doesn't turn out well enough to make sense of it. The bill goes on to enforce integrity of the provisions, what constitutes income and how it is reported and what constitutes a change in income, etc.

Page 143, line 16 begins to speak to Employer Responsibility in offering health insurance. It goes on to explain the relationship between emloyee and employer, family coverage, percentage of benefit paid, the timeliness of the payment of the benefit, the percentage a company has to pay for its employees. Generally, the employer contribution is 72.5% for individual and 65% for a family. It provides the definition of full time employee, autoenrollment of employees. It addresses the cost of 'Exchange Coverage.' The law allows the Commissioner to set percentages an employer needs to pay for less than full time employees. It also states, a percentage discount on a policy for employees does not constitute payment of the premium. There is also the election by an employee to 'Opt-Out' of any insurance coverage. That action by the employee has to occur in 30 days of the first option for automatic enrollment.

On page 150 the bill starts to explain the law in relation to small businesses and it is here I will stop for this evening.

Death Threats Against President Up 400 Percent, Week of August 13 - 19, 2009. Click title to entry for article - Thank you

"Insults, Rumors, Lies: Why is White Right Attacking First Black President?, Week of August 13 - 19, 2009 (click here for article)

The politics of waging war in Afghanistan. Is it killing our soldiers?

International forces under the banner of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are continuing to fight Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. But NATO field commanders are hindered by certain restrictions placed on troops by European governments.

NATO has more than 60,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of a United Nations mandated contingent known as the "International Security Assistance Force" - or ISAF.

ISAF troops are located in most parts of the country. One of their most difficult missions is to fight insurgents in southern Afghanistan - home of the Taliban, ousted from power by a U.S.-led coalition in 2001.

"Caveats"

Analysts say NATO is hindered in its fight against the Taliban by so-called "caveats" - restrictions placed by various NATO countries on what their forces can or cannot do.

Tomas Valasek, at the London-based Center for European Reform, describes some of those restrictions.

"What's happening is that whenever a call for troops comes in for a particular operation, the different contingents come back, or get back to the NATO commanders saying, well we'd love to take part but under the national 'caveat' we are not allowed to operate in this particular area, or we're not allowed to operate this far away from the base, or we are not allowed to operate at night," he said.

Valasek says NATO commanders in the field are finding it difficult to put together a workable strategy....

40 Candidates including two women. Voting for a President in Afghanistan.

An Afghan woman's ink-dipped finger after showing her identity card to vote in Herat, western Afghanistan. Photograph: Rahed Homavandi/Reuters

Afghan poll hailed as a 'success' (click here for video and article)

Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his Western allies have pronounced the country's election a success, after voting passed off largely peacefully.
Mr Karzai hailed Afghans for braving Taliban "bombs and intimidations". His praise was echoed by the US and Nato.
There were some attacks by insurgents, but the UN says the vast majority of polling stations were able to function.
President Karzai is facing challenges from about 30 rivals. Official results are not expected for two weeks.
"The Afghan people dared rockets, bombs and intimidations," he told reporters as polls closed following a one-hour extension.
Mr Karzai praised the citizens who turned out to vote
"We'll see what the turnout was. But they came out to vote. That's great."
In Washington, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "Lots of people have defied threats of violence and terror to express their thoughts about the next government for the people of Afghanistan."...

US military deaths in Iraq war at 4,332

...The figure includes nine military civilians killed in action. At least 3,465 military personnel died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers....

Iraqi PM orders security review (click here for video at article)
Page last updated at 21:50 GMT, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 22:50 UK
...He said Iraqi security forces were "very capable of confronting terrorists", but acknowledged that a security review was necessary.
"The criminal operations that happened today no doubt call for a re-evaluation of our plans and our security methods to face the terrorist challenges," he said in a statement.
The prime minister also said insurgents had taken advantage of government efforts to restore normalcy by removing concrete blast walls from main roads in Baghdad.
"These attacks represent a reaction to the opening of streets and bridges and the lifting of barriers inside the residential areas," he said.
An Iraqi army spokesman said two al-Qaeda members had been arrested in Baghdad in connection with the attacks.
There have so far been no claims of responsibility for the bombings....

Beach poison hit dogs two months ago (New Zealand)

...The Herald understands a council officer and a public health officer checked the beach where the dogs became ill but found nothing.
They cleared seaweed from the beach as a precaution, but, when they did not receive any further reports, concluded that the danger had passed - perhaps after a deliberate poisoning.
Dogs were purposely poisoned last year when sausages laced with a blue substance were left in Auckland parks.
But authorities believe a natural toxin is more likely to be behind the latest illnesses.
Stomach contents of a beagle that died after walking on Narrow Neck beach in early July were sent to MAF for testing. But it was not until a second dog died three weeks later on Monday after walking on the same beach that a public warning was issued.
Dog owners were angry they were not warned sooner, with reports of dogs becoming ill at Waiheke Island, Browns Bay and Karaka Beach in the Eastern suburbs....