By definition, fodder is coarse food for livestock, composed of entire plants, including leaves, stalks, and grain.

But, for Republicans the 'political fodder' they favor is bargaining for the next election with American lives over health care. What should have been a strongly bipartisan initiative has been turned into a platform of opposition by Republicans. Their party opposes everything about IMPROVEMENTS to health care delivery to the American people, even if they have to lie.

Fodder from fields outside the village being taken to cattle tethered in barns in Tocuaro, Mexico.

The point was raised in an article in The Philadelphia Inquirer by Paul Starr, a Princeton Univeristy professor, and it is valid one, that the GOP is opposing changes to health care as a means of political fodder to attempt to hold or win seats in elections.

That isn't really the issue that needs to be addressed in elections. The health of Americans and their longevity as related to their need for health care should not be at the heart of any re-election bid. Unless, they are supporting this much needed initiative.

What does this clearly say about Republicans?

They'll fight over anything without regard to live or death?

That is rational?

That is sane?

In who's book?

Posted on Fri, Nov. 20, 2009
Health-care historian: GOP opposing ideas it long espoused (click title to entry - thank you)
By Stacey Burling
Inquirer Staff Writer
...This time, it's different. There has been considerable grumbling from the medical establishment, but the approach Democrats are taking "doesn't really threaten any of those groups," said Paul Starr, a Princeton University professor who won a Pulitzer Prize for his book on the history of health care: The Social Transformation of American Medicine. He later was involved in the creation of the Clinton health plan.
Starr spoke yesterday to about 70 lawyers and Widener University professors and law students at the Union League. He later spoke at Widener.
This time, "one group remains unmollified, and that is the Republican Party," he said. The battle "has become a test of the ability of the Democrats to govern."...

Who put this deal together, Paulson? He was in China often enough. He was in China very frequently.

I sincerely doubt the Afghan people will be using their own copper as craftsmen. Nothing like supplying a Chinese company with a NATO military to secure the mines.

This is a concern.

I think there needs to be reassurances from China it will contribute to the BENEVOLENT development of Afghanistan if it is going to be a 'trade partner.'

While Afghanistan's people need an economy and some of this is good news to them, I sincerely hope China will be employing local people to conduct the operation. That will require the Chinese to be educating the Afghans in technical information to conduct the mining. China's mining techniques have not necessarily proven the safest and the country of Afghanistan frequently is open to earthquakes. There is much more to mining this copper than meets the eye.

China has been involved with Pakistan as well, selling Musharraf weapons. That creates tension with India. China has to take a hard look at the issues with stability to the region and address these trade relationships in a way that will benefit the 'region' as well as Chinese companies.

The possible corruption of a 'payoff' to secure the mining rights is an issue. If indeed Mr. Mohammad Ibrahim Adel is now a wealthy man, he needs to be building schools and hospitals and adding to the benevolence of the Afghan economy and not his own offshore bank account.

This is tough, because, when there are 'divided' loyalities in a country among the government when these ministers act as warlords, all kinds of trouble can contribute to local dynamics that act against the efforts of an American general.

This is case in point. Here a NATO British soldier was on foot patrol and shot by small arms fire. Why? What did he stumble into he wasn't suppose to?

How can NATO proceed when there are divided loyalities among the inner circle of the Karzai government? How can President Karzai lead a country to be united to stop the violence of the Taliban when in fact his own advisors might seek to align themselves with Taliban if their secrets are too dangerous to have revealed and how does NATO know that if the going gets tough for someone like Mohammad Ibrahim Adel and China has an investment in the copper that China won't be compelled to arm the Taliban if asked to do so.

I mean China compromised itself if it paid a 'ransom' for the rights to the copper mine. That is what a bribe is. It is a ransom to the rights being bargained for. I would hope China is smarter than this. China should seek to compel 'good business dealings' and stop any covert bargaining to make these trade relations legitimate. They aren't legitimate if there were bribes paid. The relationship China has with Afghanistan can fall under scrutiny if all the transactions are not open and honest. China is compromising the security of its own investment by dealing outside the understanding of benevolent consent. There should not be anything covert in a war zone.

There are a lot of questions here and it would be beneficial to ALL the parties involved to 'clear the air' and set up a trusting relationship that benefits the people of Afghanistan while disarming the Taliban and stopping their violence.

I don't see that the USA or any NATO country has to be the ONLY trade partners Afghanistan has, but, in the same methodolgy, those other trade partners have to agree to benevolent terms to their participation. It is the soldiers of NATO and the USA that have more on the line here than simply 'trade.' I apologize if that sounds as though I am placing trade in an insignificant light compared to the struggle to secure Afghansitan from the violence of the Taliban, but, the life and blood of the soldiers are a commodity that doesn't belong as part of any trade agreement.

China has to understand that while it is admirable to begin benevolent relationships with Afghanistan, there is a war going on in a region of the world where men sought to attack the USA through its civilian population. China cannot engage in any adverse actions to the USA and NATO operations in Afghanistan.

This could be a very interesting opportunity for all the countries involved. Recently Russia decided to sell NATO helicopters. Hard to believe NATO had to go to that extent, but, on the other hand it is an indication that Russia is more or less a full partner to end the violence in Afghanistan and secure the region.

Basically, every country involved with Afghanistan has to be working toward the same goal. If that could be accomplished we will see a secure Pakistan and Afghanistan. The region will actually provide some kind of decent quality of life to its people. A lot is going on with Afghanistan and the corruption has to end. But, it has to end with the efforts of all involved, not just NATO and the USA as a cheerleading section.

Russian helicopters for NATO's war in Afghanistan (click here)
01:3704/11/2009
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - Russia is ready to provide NATO with helicopters for its war in Afghanistan - on commercial terms.
Dmitry Shugayev, general director of the state-owned corporation Russian Technology, made this announcement last week at a meeting in Brussels with officials in charge of logistics for NATO forces.
During its operations in Afghanistan, the alliance has faced an acute shortage of helicopters. In Afghanistan's extremely harsh conditions, helicopters often break down and need replacements even in non-combat situations. And the need for military hardware grows with continued increases in troops....

Last message of TA soldier shot in Afghanistan: 'Still waiting for new body armour' (click here)
Two weeks after being deployed Rifleman Andrew Fentiman was shot dead while on foot patrol in Helmand province
Richard Norton-Taylor
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 November 2009 21.33 GMT
He had put his career as a sales manager at a software firm on hold to pursue his ambition of becoming an army officer.
In a blog from the frontline, the Territorial Army soldier Andrew Fentiman, 23, described his Afghan base as calm and was cheered by the cheap cigarettes but worried troops were still waiting for the body armour and helmets they had been promised. Two weeks after being deployed Rifleman Fentiman, who was serving with the 7th Battalion The Rifles, was shot dead while on foot patrol near Sangin in Helmand province on Sunday....

China Metallurgical Group Corporation (click here)


Published online 28 November 2007
Nature 450, 599 (2007)
News in Brief
China secures contract for Afghan copper mine (click here)
Afghanistan last week announced that a Chinese firm has won the bid for the first post-Taliban natural-resource development project: the US$30-billion Aynak copper deposit outside Kabul (see Nature 449 , 968–971 ; 2007).
The state-owned China Metallurgical Group will now negotiate the final terms of the deal, in which China is pledging $2.9 billion to Afghanistan to create a mine in five years that will tap the estimated 13 million tonnes of ore.
China's operation of Aynak will be closely watched by scientists, aid agencies and economists because of environmental and socio-economic concerns raised over mining projects elsewhere.

There is a much broader picture regarding Fort Hood that over shadows the base.

Ft. Hood has had 10 soldier suicides this year, the second-highest of any Army post. Families of troops who have committed suicide say troubled soldiers are slipping through the cracks.

Teri Smith holds a photo of her son, Iraq veteran Staff Sgt. Justin "Jon" Garza, who shot himself in July at a friend's apartment near Ft. Hood, Texas. Last week's shooting rampage has drawn new attention to soldiers' mental health. "My son slipped through the cracks," Smith says. (Luke Sharrett / New York Times)

From the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

Last updated November 19, 2009 11:22 a.m. PT
Gates names West, Clark to lead Fort Hood review (click here)
By PAULINE JELINEK AND ANNE GEARAN

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON -- Trying to avert another tragedy like the Fort Hood shootings, Defense Secretary Robert Gates named a former Army secretary and former Navy chief to review a broad range of Pentagon programs, ranging from medical and personnel policies to how well military bases are secured.
Army Secretary Togo West and former chief of naval operations Adm. Vernon Clark will head the 45-day review.
"The shootings at Fort Hood raise a number of troubling questions that demand complete but prompt answers," Gates told a Pentagon news conference. He said the review would seek to ensure the health and safety of military members and their families.
The review will try to find gaps in procedures for identifying service members who could pose threats to others, he said....

Togo West named Pentagon's next U.S. Army Secretary (click here)

Nomination by President Clinton

Brief Article

A distinguished 51-year-old Howard University trained lawyer who served as the Navy's general counsel during the Carter administration was selected by President Clinton as the next U.S. Army Secretary at the Pentagon.
If he is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Togo Dennis West, Jr. will take over the duties of an office which recently was vacated when John W. Shannon, who was the Pentagon's highest ranked civilian Black, was placed on administrative leave on charges of shoplifting a $30 blouse and skirt ensemble....

Something tells me these men know a little bit about the military.

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL VERN CLARK, U.S. NAVY (click here)
CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON STATUS OF THE NAVY
27 SEPTEMBER 2000

Vernon E. Clark (click here)

Vernon E. ClarkChief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy (retired)
Admiral Vernon E. Clark joined SRI’s Board of Directors in 2007.

...Admiral Clark serves on the boards of Raytheon Company, Horizon Lines, Rolls Royce North America, the Armed Forces YMCA, the World Board of Governors of the USO, and he is a member of the Defense Policy Board. He is on the Board of Trustees at Regent University and the Board of Visitors at Air University. Admiral Clark is on advisory boards with Fleishman-Hillard Inc., the U.S. General Accounting Office, Computer Science Corporation, and Whitney, Bradley & Brown.

Could "The Ed Show" be the next Walter Cronkite? Quite Possibly.

We can't stop now.

USA: GDP UP 3. 5% IN THIRD QUARTER (click title to entry - thank you)
...The last GDP growth in the U.S. was in the second quarter of 2008, while the U.S. economy had officially entered a recession at the end of 2007. Consumer purchases in the third quarter are up 3.4%, the highest growth rate since the first quarter of 2007. Three months ago the had shown a 0.9% drop....

For as long as I can remember I have advocated for a return to local economies that will benefit the American people directly in sustaining their country and hence their freedom with a high quality of life standard. That message is finally taking shape and Congressman Defazio is leading the nation in recapturing this focus. I believe the first stimulus did what it was supposed to do and stopped the country from sliding into a far worse recession, but, it also was sapped into recovering from the grossly misguided eight years of Bush/Republican crony spending. We simply can't do that anymore.

Defazio Wants Another Stimulus Package (click here)
9:29AM
He says the previous stimulus didn't create jobs.
by Julia Gray / KBND News Sources
Take the TARP money back; Wall Street can bail out Main Street. That's what Congressman Peter Defazio wants to do. He says it should have been done in the first economic stimulus package. Defazio wants to create a second economic stimulus package in the form of a jobs bill. He wants this one to focus on transportation and infrastructure projects, which he says will put Americans to work.



What I find refreshing about The Ed Show is the fact there aren't words minced with politics. It is the truth and the blantant truth. I appreciate that. And if that isn't 'bipartisan then I don't know what is.

All too frequently I am hearing how President Obama never meant to be sincerely bipartisan, but only said it for votes. That is a lie. The meaning of bipartisanship takes on many dynamics and speaking THE TRUTH is what this administration and Democratic Congress is all about. The truth is more non-partisan than any other words that can be stated.

The fact of the matter is that the USA sovereignty can only be guaranteed by an internal economy that carries the nation's needs now and for future generations. That is only possible with strong and viable local economies that contribute to the federal and state tax bases. It is upto people like Congressman DeFazio working with Labor, Governors and Mayors to bring about the best economic stability and viability for the people of the USA.

As far as TARP, I believe Congressman DeFazio is correct. Secretary Geithner and Mr. Summers is talking right past the President and Vice President whenever they make testimony and speak to the allocation of TARP as Wall Street as the focus.

While I believe some of the funds being returned to the USA Treasury needs to be set aside as these banks might actually continue to fail and we can't allow it in order to reap our treasury back, there is still yet another TRUTH that Congressman DeFazio is exactly correct.

If funds are not directed into the infrastructure of small business in the USA, the economy here will never improve. The Deficit will never be paid down and the USA will enter into a negatively spiraling economy that will be impossible to recover to raise the standard of living of the people of the USA with low unemployment and companies that provide valuable services.

Given that, the question arises as to how much of the TARP funds were actually squandered by bailing out these banks and will never be recovered. It is a reality no one likes to address in that Bush's Bailout is actually a huge folly.

What if those banks are never able to pay back the TARP funds and there is little to no income for the Treasury due to the neglect of the 'real economy' that the USA needs to generate. The American electorate actually believes the banks were going to put people back to work by lending and rebuilding the country in a functional way. That isn't happening, but, it was some of the propaganda that was being handed out when the Congressional votes were coming down.

The USA needs an autonomous economy that can provide good paying jobs to people. It is the 'income of our people' that will stabilize this economy. It is time we had a strong economy in the USA and if that means a strong dollar along with it, then I am not going to apologize for it.

While having some residual in the USA Treasury to attempt to keep these failed companies alives is prudent, having that as the only focus to our treasury is more of a folly than that of Bush's Bailout.

We need another stimulus package and THIS time the states can't simply 'take the money and run.' It has to go to building the infrastructure the first one was supposed to provide along with loans to small businesses to stabilize the USA on a firm basis realizing we may have to pay the entire TARP mess ourselves.

GOP is terrified of its own reality.

They broke the law. They committed atrocities against other peoples under the pretense of a National Defense, they tortured human beings when they shouldn't have and now that the cases are moving to the venues of the USA Justice Department, the GOP is scared they are going to loss because of their own 'illegality' in handling evidence and treatment of prisoners.

There is nothing else to say. Gitmo is a MEDIUM security prison and those prisoners should have been in maximum security since their arrests. So, now, it is upto the USA Courts to try the prisoners and secure justice for the American people. It is going to be interesting, because, the defense lawyers won't hold back. The GOP stood behind their Executive Branch and now they feel compromised because they have been replaced with people that uphold the law the way it was supposed to be upheld. Let them learn that the USA lives by 'The Rule of Law' and NOT 'The Rule of Men.' Incompetent men no less.


GOP senators grill Holder on decision to try 9/11 suspects in federal court (click title to entry - thank you)
12:00 AM CST on Thursday, November 19, 2009
FROM WIRE REPORTS McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON – In a series of testy exchanges, Republican senators confronted Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday over his decision to try the Sept. 11 terrorism suspects in civilian court.
President Barack Obama, meanwhile, expressed certainty that the suspects would be found guilty and executed.
In his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder didn't go as far as Obama did. But the nation's top prosecutor said he was confident justice would be delivered to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other accused plotters of the 9/11 attacks.
"Failure is not an option," Holder declared.
Opponents of the plan have accused him of adopting a "pre-9/11" approach to terrorism. Holder emphatically denied that.
"We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power – civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic and others – to win," Holder said....

On many occassion on this blog I reported there were wind events when fridge air would 'fall off' the top of the Blue Ice to the sea.

This is a picture by NASA of those winds. Climate Change is REAL and is an emergency.

There was also a report by a British science team stating the 'sea ice' off East Antarctica was increasing. I stated it was because of the winds sweeping from high altitudes with very frigid temperatures that actually caused the increase in sea ice. It was not a 'hopeful' sign Earth was recovering, but, simply one of those phenomena that occur with degradation of the planet's ice reserves.

Well. Guess whom was correct? The added sea ice has nothing to do with a 'reversing trend' of global cooling, it had to due with 'melting glacial ice' in the 'dead of winter' in Antarctica. As the WATER ran across ice to the sea it cooled and took those far colder temperatures from the blue ice to the sea as fresh water and cooled enough to increase the sea ice.

Sea Ice Study Yields New Insights (click here)
Wednesday, 4 November, 2009 - 13:33
NZ scientists endured the dark polar winter to find what drives the dramatic growth of sea ice
A New Zealand scientific team has shed light on an important role of ice shelves around Antarctica. Initial results have shown for the first time that cold water melted from ice shelves enhances the dramatic growth of sea ice over winter. This mechanism potentially explains why Antarctic sea ice has not seen the same dramatic decline as Arctic sea ice.
The team from NIWA, Otago University, IRL, and Victoria University, was led in Antarctica by Dr Andy Mahoney (Otago University). They wintered at New Zealand's Scott Base from February - October, conducting surveys at two locations in McMurdo Sound.
They recently returned from their eight-month stint in Antarctica with prodigious amounts of scientific data....


Katabatic Winds Rake Antarctica's Terra Nova Bay (click title to entry - thank you)
Posted November 10, 2009
Just days away from the beginning of the Southern Hemisphere’s spring, Antarctica’s Inexpressible Island and the Northern Foothills Mountains were illuminated by a glimmer of sunlight from a low angle when the Advanced Land Imager (ALI) on NASA’s Earth Observing-1 (EO-1) satellite captured this image on September 16, 2009. The seaward slopes of the mountains are gleaming white, and they cast long shadows inland over the Nansen Ice Sheet. Terra Nova Bay appears in shadow.
The scene provides at least two indications of the bay’s persistent and fierce katabatic winds—downslope winds that blow from the interior of the ice sheet toward the coast. One is the windswept ground in the mountainous terrain. In many places, there is a pattern of bare rock and snow drifts that suggests the winds have scoured snow from upwind (inland-facing) slopes and deposited it on the lee sides....

Below is a 'Climate Map' by NOAA. It shows a planet burning up.

The cold air over the USA and Europe is due to 'heat transfer' to the North Polar Cap and the shunting of Arctic air to lower latitudes. I've discussed that mechnanism many, many times. No one can state this is 'Global Cooling.' No one. Global Cooling is a myth.

The base period used to determine the increase in global temperatures was from 1970 to 2000. The temperatures reported are higher than that 'mean.'



Ocean Losing Its Appetite for Carbon (click title to entry - thank you)
Christine Dell'Amore
National Geographic News
November 18, 2009
The world's oceans, which normally gobble up carbon dioxide, are getting stuffed to the gills, according to the most thorough study to date of human-made carbon in the seas.
Between 2000 and 2007, as emissions of the potent greenhouse gas carbon dioxide skyrocketed, the amount of human-made carbon absorbed by the oceans fell from 27 to 24 percent....

The less of a 'carbon sink' the ocean is the higher the density of CO2 in the troposphere and the higher the temperatures become globally. It is a matter of physics. Nothing civilization hasn't been warned about.

The Commonwealth Fund - a comparison of quality of health care delivery across the USA.

Every Federal State Senator that believes they can return home after standing in the way of profound health reform when ALL the facts about the 'status of their state's health care system' is known is only fooling themselves as to any sincere welcome by their constituents.


(click on image for larger resolution and click on it again for largest resolution.)

3 Democrats Could Block Health Bill in Senate (click here)
By CARL HULSE
Published: November 17, 2009
WASHINGTON — Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, says he is not sure he is ready to help a Democratic health care proposal clear even the most preliminary hurdle: gaining the 60 votes his party’s leaders need to open debate on the measure later this week.
Two of his fellow Democrats, Senators Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, are proving tough sells as well, raising the prospect that one or perhaps all three of them could scuttle the bill before the fight over it even begins on the Senate floor....

I am sure these three Senators are not appraised of the full impact they can appreciate for their states of the Health Care Reform Bill. Otherwise, I can't phatom why they would seem to want to thwart improved circumstances for the people of their states.

Louisana and Arkansas has some of the most abysmal conditions for health care of the fifty states. I mean the lower quarter of all the states. Abysmal. Completely.

Nebraska fell in ranking as to the best outcome to health care in the nation from 10th to 13th in JUST ONE YEAR. It shutters me to realize what it is going to look like in two years.

I realize Democrats in states that normally lean right in most elections feel exceptionally threatened by participating in active passage of this health care bill. However, there is more peril in lacking profound 'conscience' about the moral implications of not participating in improving the outcome to their states with a federal mandate. It is 'sorta' of how one defines 'morality.' Does one define morality with a stack of dollar bills or by the quality of life of their fellow human beings?

Neither Louisiana or Arkansas can afford to avoid passage of a comprehensive overhaul of the health care insurance industry that leads to higher quality of care.

This health care bill actually gives these Senators a real chance to be heroes to their constituencies.

As illustrated in figure 1 (click here), the higher the poverty rate in a state, the fewer federal funds that state receives per capita. The “Katrina states”— Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas—have higher poverty rates but lower federal payments, while a group of mostly northeastern states with lower poverty rates gets approximately twice the amount of federal funds per person in poverty.

In the case of Lousiana, there is a chance to bring equity to the 'per capita' funds spent on the children of that state, based on 'cost of living' in comparison to national standards of health care costs. There is one aspect to health care in the USA that cannot be ignored; there is no such thing as 'Regional Health Care Costs.'

Every state in the USA competes equally for 'talent.' So, while the cost of living might be lower in Louisiana, it does not mean their cost of health care delivery is any different. They have to compete with all the other states to recruit 'talent' to treat their people and when they can't offer equal incentives for Health Care Workers to 'settle' in Louisiana. thus, their people suffer.

I am confident there is a profound opportunity for Louisiana, Arkansas and Nebraska to bring better talent and better quality of health care thus leading to better quality of life to their citizens with the passage of this health care bill.

Good luck in what these Senators are seeking that will provide much needed reforms to their states. I am sure they can be accommodated in the needs of their people.

The Senate Bill MUST set a limit on the exploitation by the Health Care Industry to 'reep' profits since President Obama's election.

The insurance industry is 'punishing' the American people for passing health care reform. I have never seen Michael this distressed before. Not even during his filming of "Slacker Uprising" when he was hoping to stem the propaganda by the Bush/Rove campaign during 2004 have I noted him this stressed by news of exploitation of the Ameican people.

Mike tends to take his role in any movement exceptionally seriously and the fact the insurance industry is exploiting the passage of landmark legislation for 'unfair' profit margins 'while the taking is good,' isn't just morally reprehensible, I am fairly certain there are laws already 'on the books' that can prosecute the CEOs for price gouging.

I believe this is the article Mike is referring to in his speech while attending a meeting in Canada.

Drug Makers Raise Prices in Face of Health Care Reform (click title to entry - thank you)

By DUFF WILSON
Published: November 15, 2009

Even as drug makers promise to support Washington’s health care overhaul by shaving $8 billion a year off the nation’s drug costs after the legislation takes effect, the industry has been raising its prices at the fastest rate in years....

I actually don't mind if an industry 'assists' the passage of a law by providing effective language and measures that will uphold the 'spirit' of the law. But. I certainly don't expect any industry, especially those already doing business with the American government, to exploit any bill for unfair profits that provide hardships for future generations of Americans. No, no.

I am almost certain when Attorney General Holder examines the laws of the USA, especially when it is related to businesses that contract with the USA government, there are provisions to stop exploitation of the USA Treasury. There has to be. It protects the sovereignty of the country. This isn't going to be tolerated.

The Senate needs to place a provision in their bill that can go to reconciliation with the House Bill to provide the freedom the Attorney General needs to prosecute those that have viewed this legislative period as an opportunity for "Wind Fall Profits." The 'discount' the pharmaceutical companies have 'pledged' to MUST be based upon the prices they charged a day before the election of 2008.

Health Care is an essential service. Any CEO of any company noted to be exploiting any essential service to the people of this country needs to be prosecuted along with the Board of Directors/Trustees.

We have an expression in my circle of friends. "Everyone has got to try, I guess." There are a lot of reasons for folks to try to override concerns of Conservationists and use all kinds of ruthless measures to do so, but, when it comes right down to it and the truth is told it becomes a matter of 'morals' and 'decency.'

So.

This is just one of those 'Everyone has got to try, I guess." moments. They can try, but, they can't succeed. It's okay.

When 'the innnocent' of any circumstance seems short sighted and 'the fools' it is because they don't have evil thoughts while those that exploit do.

It will be alright.

"Everyone has got to try, I guess."

I don't see that 13 million people NOT having health care insurance after the passage of these bills is acceptable. I am sure it was an oversight by someone.

The 'overcharging' any health care related industry plans? It is basically extortion!

Million dollar babies. Somehow an additional tax on the wealthiest Americans just doesn't break my heart.

It isn't as though Congress is taking away the backyard pleasure horse, you know what I mean? Everything in balance America. Everything in balance. Give me a break here. I suppose there might be a stable hand or two that might end up on the unemployment line, but, in exchange for what exactly?


Posted: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:47 PM
Wertheimer snags Honest Pursuit for $3.1-million (click title to entry - thank you)
by John P. Sparkman
..."We thought she would be about $2.5-million," said Wertheimer, who races and breeds in partnership with his brother, Gerard. "If you could get that family every day, you wouldn't pay that much."...

November 17th, 2009 1:30 PM
AP POLL: Tax the rich to pay for health bill (click here)
By Erica Werner / Associated Press
The House bill would impose a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and households making more than $1 million.
The poll tested views on an even more punitive taxation scheme that was under consideration earlier, when the tax would have hit people making more than $250,000 a year. Even at that level the poll showed majority support, with 57 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed.
"You know, I mean, why not? If they have that much money, it should be taxed," said Mary Pat Rondthaler, 60, of Menlo Park, Calif. "It isn't the same way that the guy making $21,000 is."
Not everyone agreed.
"They earn their money. And they shouldn't have to pay for somebody else. It doesn't seem fair," said Emerson Wilkins, 62, of Powder Springs, Ga.
Overall, the poll found the public split on Congress' health care plans. In response to some questions, participants said the current system needed to be changed, but they also voiced concerns about the potential impact on their own pocketbooks, preferring to push any new costs onto wealthier Americans....

I think I left off with Page 14 or something like that...

Okay, so I know that The Baucus Bill is not an original bill and I know that it is an amendment to Medicare. I also know the Baucus Bill INAPPROPRIATELY targets aspects of the Medicare LAWS inappropriately and with bias toward cronies such as Medicare Advantage. I also know that simply makes my blood boil.

Now.

The bill goes on to FOCUS the brunt of the responsiblity NOT on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, but, on THE STATES. It is the states that will be ridden into compliance and will carry the EXPENSE of enacting this law. The question is "How much is in this provision that will be paid to the States from the Federal Government to mediate their expenses in ADDING to their expense of being in compliance with this federal legislation?"

The 'title' to the State Plans will be "Qualified Health Benefit Plan. Page 15, lines 1 through 8:

QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.—For purposes of this title, a health benefits plan which is offered in the individual or small group market shall be a qualified health benefits plan with respect to a State if—
(1) the plan has in effect a certification (which may include a seal or other indication of approval) issued or recognized by the State that such plan meets the applicable requirements of—

A Seal?

The plan has to display a Seal of some kind to be qualified.

I see.

Well, there is nothing like looking official. Sort of like a birth certificate or something.

Do you know what the placement of a 'simple seal' will cost in 'ceremony' of implementing the bill?

That means there will be a 'CLEARINGHOUSE' of qualified health benefit plans examined by one, possibly two people, in order to QUALIFY for a 'seal' and those folks will probably be making well over $50,000 a year, at least.

And I'll tell how silly this is going to become.

When a 'plan' is submitted and it does not 'get' a seal displayed on it, companies will have the State in court to discern the issue as to why that plan did not qualify AND they will seek redress by having the opportunity to change their plan to meet the requirements for the seal.

If a seal is displayed therefore the public will KNOW all they have to do is find a seal on the document and it is a qualified plan.

It is my opinion, such a ceremonial issue is not necessary and will only lead to corruption.

It will get plenty expensive and will become cost prohibitive to most State budgets. Not only that, but, it will treat the public as if they are dunces that only have to look for a seal, sort of like a 'Seal of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.' It is condescending, rude and idiotic.

The rest of the entry of those subparagraphs say basically nothing, but, simply repeat what is already stated in page Page 14 which I already discussed. Page 15, lines 17 through 20:

‘‘(B) complies with such other requirements as the Secretary or the State may establish pursuant to this title for qualified health benefits plans.

That line NULLIFIES the entire Federal government and everything it has stated before this line and after. It is corrupt and double talk.

The bill by Baucus is an empty bill.

It means nothing.

A State can come in and legislate its own version of this bill plugging in and taking out any provision passed by the Federal legislation to send on 'its customized' version for application to State law so long as it 'insures' that Medicare Advantage will insure its Individual and Small Group Market AND any 'Coop' is limited to sharing the cost of perscription medications.

The Baucus Bill is meaningless and is nothing more than a 'gesture' to the people of the USA to say the Senate 'did something' to act as their advocate, but, it completely turns all authority over to each State legislature to do as they please. The Bill says 'Secretary OR the State,' is does not say 'Secretary AND the State.' And WHO is the Secretary to alter any federal legislation at will anyway?

This bill keeps getting weaker and weaker and practically begs the States to participate. Page 16, lines 1 through 12:

‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘health benefits plan’ means health insurance coverage and a group health plan.

‘‘(B) EXCEPTION FOR SELF-INSURED PLANS AND MEWAS.—Except to the extent specifically provided by this title, the term ‘health benefits plan’ shall not include a group health plan or multiple employer welfare arrangement to the extent the plan is not subject to State insurance regulation under section 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Bill pulls in even more EMPTY authority that already exists in the Federal Government. MEWAS is an acronym that stands for "Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements." It is an aspect of the ERISA laws. ERISA is an acronym that stands for "The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974."

Now to back a bit and I don't believe I have to go through hoops to talk about a bill that is an ORIGINAL bill either. But, to back up a bit, this provision basically says, ALL the previous 'enforcements' of the bill are in place and carry brevity EXCEPT when... Follow? I have a feeling there are more EXCEPT WHENs in this bill than there is law.

Now to realize how silly all this is? One simply has to know that ERISA is not a law that REQUIRES 'squat' compliance from any employer, but, simply provides 'guidelines' to 'help' employers make good decisions. In other words, IF employers are making decisions regarding 'benefits' to employees it is recommended they think about it in a 'certain' way that provides good benefits.

ERISA applies only to Private Employers and does not require employers to provide benefits at all. No insurance. Nothing. So, when the Baucus Bill states the legislation is in effect EXCEPT when ERISA applies by provisions of MEWAS, it is AGAIN nullifying the brevity of the legislation to give permission to provide NO benefits.

Now, MEWAS is a bit like a 'cooperative' for employers to share assets when providing insurance to employees. The problem with MEWAS is that it has been embezzled. Let me see if there is an online reporting of that.

Well, it is discussed here, but, I am going to try to find a case.

MEWA Enforcement (click here) - The Labor Department has devoted significant resources to investigating and litigating issues connected with abusive MEWAs who sell the promise of inexpensive health benefit insurance, but default on their obligations. Particular emphasis has been put on identifying ongoing abusive and fradulent MEWAs and working to shut down such operations.

Here is some fraud, but, it doesn't really constitute embezzlement. It shows clearly what Americans are up against in discerning 'good' health insurance that they thought was affordable form 'bad.'

"Unfortunately, Christine’s experience is not an isolated case. (click here)

According to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) and federal and state regulators, in the past two decades health insurance scams sold through both legitimate and phony associations have defrauded thousands of small businesses and self-employed individuals.4 In the last six months, over 50,000 working Americans and their families have lost their health insurance coverage, and many of these victims are now faced with millions of dollars in unpaid medical bills that should have been paid by association health plans.

I think I found a case in California. The problem is that when I kept going deeper into the site to read the transcripts all kinds of bells and whistles start going off on my computer and I thought I best not continue, so I ran some diagnostics to be sure nothing made its way into this machine. I paid plenty of it, ya know? I am going to try one more time.

This is kind of interesting.

Rodger Burge, an attorney with Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless in Salt Lake City, said the two opinion (click here) letters reflect a “constant struggle since 1983,” as MEWA providers continue to try to find “creative ways to avoid” state regulation.
Lower Costs, Higher Risks
Prior to the 1983 amendment, MEWA promoters “typically represented to employers and state regulators that the MEWA is an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA and, therefore, exempt from state insurance regulation under ERISA’s broad preemption provisions,” the DOL notes in its guidance, MEWAs Under ERISA: A Guide to Federal and State Regulation.
MEWAs could market insurance coverage at rates lower than regulated insurance companies, which made them more attractive for small businesses that had difficulty obtaining affordable group health care coverage.
“In practice, however, a number of MEWAs have been unable to pay claims as a result of insufficient funding and assets through excessive administrative fees and outright embezzlement,” the DOL said in its guidance....

The problem we face today as a nation is that we have tried as citizens to maintain health insurance to bring care to ourselves and our families and this is the outcome. It is a field day for lawyers.

When NEW law allows the mistakes of the past and the continued problems of the present to 'migrate' into its influence, then it violates the 'public trust.' Because, when people come to their government to help them solve their problems they don't expect it to continue to percipiate the same problems over and over again. The Baucus Bill does exactly that. The bill is basically ignoring the lessons of the past that are grossly well documented and continues to perpetuate the problem.

Embezzlement is when an accountant to a company or even a corrupt Board of Trustees or Board of Directors or an officer to a company takes funds from the company and uses it for personal wealth. It is such a problem that professionals, lawyers, legitimate accountants 'advise' clients or potential clients 'online.' Example here:

Embezzlement: What? Who? Why? How? Detection!! Prevention!! (click here)

A Three-Part Presentation Exclusively For Our Readers (Part 1 ) by Stephen Linker
I have helped clients prevent and/or detect fraud for thirty years. One of my first embezzlement discoveries will serve as the example in this series of articles.
I was a senior accountant working for a small firm in a very quiet community on Long Island. It started off innocently enough. I was working on the year-end closing of the books of a small retail heating oil business. My job was to adjust the books and prepare the client’s financial statements and tax returns for the year end. During that year, the company was in the process of converting their billing and collection system from a manual to a computerized system....

So, to continue to say the Baucus Bill is poorly conceived and even more poorly written is validated by the fact there are 'components' to the bill that repeat the same problems we as a nation are trying to solve. It is not good law. So far my opinion is that it should be abandoned for the other Senate Bill that more strongly resembles the House Bill.

I can't believe after all this I am only upto page 16. Buoy.

Page 17 uses 'new' definitions, the remainder of 16 defines Health Insurance Coverage and Issuer, Group Health Plan and Health Benefits Plan Offeror according to existing definitions in the Tax Code. The new defintions this bill offers is in regard to MARKETS. It first defines 'Group Market" with no delineation to Large or Small, then it defines "Individual Market," and then it defines "Large and Small Group Markets." The verbiage is fairly simple and determines 'large from small' according to the definition in the tax code. There is language that bothers me.

Page 17, lines 10 through 15:

‘‘(1) GROUP MARKET.—The term ‘group market’ means the health insurance market under which individuals obtain health insurance coverage (directly or through any arrangement) on behalf of themselves (and their dependents) through a group health plan maintained by an employer.

Here again the legislation removes language to control its focus by dismissing any sincere defintion as to what health insurance coverage is for a group. It states there is a health insurance market that can take any arrangement. It states it as if an after thought and puts it in parenthesis. The probably is that 'any arrangement' actually might legalize fraud and embezzlement when applied to the group health insurance market. That really makes this 'SEAL' thing interesting doesn't it?

What the bill should state is that group health insurance markets are comprised of a 'pool' of qualified insurers that qualify under the laws governing Insurance agencies and companies that provide health insurance to the general public as perscribed by Federal or State Law whichever is more restrictive to the definition of quality and qualification.

What that does is to have the Federal Government define what exactly 'quality qualification' is and also allows more restrictive definitions that a State might have to apply over and above that of the Federal Statues. In realizing any agency or 'insurer' has to have a license to provide such coverage to anyone or to a group in some kind of 'speciality' practice of the licensure, it removes the need for a 'seal' as the 'license' then defines the qualifications of those writing the policies and enforcing the quality.

The licensing of those that write and offer these policies demands MORE than any bogus 'seal' by any State agency that removes such protections from 'individual and small group health insurance policies.'

In other words, my Aunt Betty could become someone that places 'seals' on policies even if she is not licensed. But, if the law states those providing such policies to the public have to be licensed it removes the ability to easily commit crimes. Aunt Betty could act as an independant contractor that is able to understand what it takes to obtain a 'seal' and rubber stamp any policy as she sees fit if that were allowed by State law. The 'idea' that unlicensed agents could be written into a State law to carry out this mess to exonerate the State from the cost of doing same is all too tempting in some states. Oh, yes. Absolutely.

The bill goes on to define the words Preexisting Condition Exclusion and Health Status Related Factors and seem 'okay' for the most part. I'll list them here.

Page 18, lines 16 through 23 and Page 19, lines 1 through 5:

‘‘(b) PREEXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘preexisting condition exclusion’ means, with respect to coverage, a limitation or exclusion of benefits relating to a condition based on the fact that the condition was present before the date of enrollment for such coverage, whether or not any medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received before such date.
‘‘(c) HEALTH STATUS-RELATED FACTORS.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘health status-related factors’ means health status, medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses), claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, genetic information, evidence of insurability (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence), and disability.

The bill excludes any attempt to qualify as a health benefit plan if there are exclusions as stated above.

I would like to see more than 'acts of domestic violence' included here though.

We already know that issues of 'rape' are considered a pre-existing condition.

So.

To better serve all Americans, it should state, "including conditions arising from acts of crime." After all, prisoners that commit crimes receive state funded medical treatment even after they have been shot by police officers. It is only JUST that every citizen receive the same consideration.

There MIGHT be issue here as well, that exclusions might be justified under this verbiage to place restrictions on 'Acts of God or Nature or War.' The verbiage is not bad but could use some tweeking to include most all issues found to enter into the venue of health care.

And this is not difficult to include.

Hospitals across this country, in all fifty states, provinces, tribal areas and military outposts keep records and 'track' the kind of problems that come into their practices. They have to so 'purchasers' know what to order from medical suppliers to stock the hospital and office selves.

Page 19, lines 6 and 7 and 15 through 22:

‘‘SEC. 2203. GUARANTEED ISSUE AND RENEWAL FOR INSURED PLANS....
...‘‘(B) in the small group market in a State, must accept—
‘‘(i) every small employer in the State that applies for enrollment of its employees under the plan; and
‘‘(ii) every individual who is eligible to enroll in the plan by reason of a relationship to the employer as is determined—

This provision states the plans only qualify if they accept all those that apply to them.

Okay.

However when it comes to the definition of "...small employer...' it leaves out the 'idea' and 'reality' there are 'other small groups' than just that of employers. There can be 'cooperatives' of small groups, namely that of farmers that belong to 'units' that serve their buying needs for supplies. These small groups could affiliate and purchase health insurance for 'individuals' that belong to those groups.

So, I believe there needs to be an inclusion here other than just 'small businesses.' Farmers can be viewed as businesses, but, they aren't necessarily small either. Farmers don't necessarily employ people, some on just seasonal basis and some, 'though few,' are family farms that 'provide a living' to members of that family.

To include the 'opportunity' for all Americans the word 'small business' needs to be broadened to include 'small groups affiliated for a common purpose.'

This bill also defers all these definitions to the authority of the States. Every state knows its populous. So, if the States are to be defining small groups there should be stipulation in the Federal Statue that States include all definitions of small groups within their populous. There needs to be an understanding that as that populous changes so does the definition.

Page 20 and this is where I am going to 'end it for this evening.'

Page 20, lines 12 through 16:

An offeror of a plan shall not be treated as meeting the requirements of this subsection unless the plan also accepts, renews, or continues in force coverage of an individual who is eligible for enrollment in the plan by reason of their relationship to the named insured under the plan.

I like this because it extends COBRA benefits.

In other words, when a child or employee to a group has a change of circumstance they still have the option of keeping their same coverage. So far, there is no restriction to this provision in this bill.

It provides 'continuity' of coverage and will provide the 'insurer' with the insight needed to understand its insured on a continual rather than cost cutting basis. It provides a 'long term' client base that has different demands on health insurance over a lifetime.

In other words, when children are young their health insurance needs are different than when they are adults. The 'average' child needs wellness check ups far more often than they do as adults.

Let's suppose a person is covered by the same health insurance for their entire life. The premium can be bettered 'discerned' as if they are paying for 'life insurance.' The cost of a persons health care needs, assuming FIRST they will remain mostly healthy and vital will be 'limited' to what is required for 'basic health care.' Those costs change from year to year based upon their age. If that cost is spread out over a lifetime the cost to the group and/or individual is known and limited.

That changes where there are 'usual living dynamics' added such as broken bones or diseases. It is interesting to realize health insurance companies have been doing themselves a 'disfavor' by cutting their 'insured' based upon their 'profitability' of the people that have diseases or higher costs to their health care.

It might be that if a disease is sent into remission the increase to their 'bottom line' might actually increase. OR. If a 'brittle diabetic' receives better care from a new physician added to the network, the cost of their care actually would decrease and add to the profitabilty of the company.

So.

To enforce the 'dynamic' that a health insurance company has to keep their insured regardless of the 'individual' profit margin is to realize it increases the probability of profits that can be realized over a lifetime of coverage rather than limiting it to the time when they have no health care needs at all.

Good night for tonight.

I was diagnosed with an "in situ" comedo cancer in my left breast at the age of 43 and it saved my life. That was eleven years ago.

Actually, this is where legislation DONE WELL can prevent stupidity that sides with cost cutting and sacrifices lives for profit. This is EXACTLY why we need effective legislation and move forward to bring the highest standards of care to everyone without siding with cutting costs and inconvenience.

Women over 40 should have recommendations to have regular mammograms and men should have prostate checks and both genders should have follow ups. If I didn't take the recommendation of my physician seriously, I would have been diagnosed far later and with greater peril to my health.

This must have come from Bush's Advisory Panel as a 'political volleyball' to twart Health Care Insurance Reform. I need to find the source. And then figure out of this was some kind of 'cock-eyed' political view of the world.

One thing the American consumer has to remember, the 'guidelines' SET DOWN in the House Reform Bill specifically states there is a 'public inclusion' in the decisions by any Advisory Panel. I read 'same' here on this blog. The public and its advocacy groups are INCLUDED in the decision making regarding the public's well being. THAT is not the case in the current Bush Advisory Panel.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure® Recommends No Impediments to Breast Cancer Screening Until Science Improves (click here), Current Screening Recommendations Should Remain, World’s Leading Breast Cancer Organization Reports
DALLAS – November 16, 2009 – Susan G. Komen for the Cure®, the world’s leading breast cancer advocacy organization, has carefully reviewed the data and new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concerning mammography screening. Komen for the Cure issued the following statement today from Eric P. Winer, M.D., chief scientific adviser and chair of Komen’s Scientific Advisory Board.

“Susan G. Komen for the Cure wants to eliminate any impediments to regular mammography screening for women age 40 and older. While there is no question that mammograms save lives for women over 50 and women 40–49, there is enough uncertainty about the age at which mammography should begin and the frequency of screening that we would not want to see a change in policy for screening mammography at this time.”...

This is what promoted the whole thing. It is related to 'SPENDING' and forget about the lives that were saved.

New Studies Show the Downside Of Cancer Screening (click here for additional video)
False Positives Bring High Costs, But Doctors Back the Value of Cancer Tests

By JOSEPH BROWNSTEIN

ABC News Medical Unit

Sept. 1, 2009

Recent years have seen a rise in encouragement for cancer screenings, but a number of studies have reminded physicians and their patients of the old saying about free lunches.

That is, nothing good comes without a cost.

Two studies released Monday -- one looking at prostate cancer and the other at breast cancer -- appearing in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, show that increased screening brings false positives and the costs of emotional anguish and sometimes unnecessary treatment.

"The fact that it is a surprise to so many physicians and so many patients is a symptom of the debate taking place now regarding health care reform," said Dr. Thomas Schwenk, a family physician with the University of Michigan, commenting on the prostate cancer study. "

The American approach to medical care is to always do more, irrespective of whether it has any value, and even in the face of data showing that doing more causes harm."

The Legislature needs to include in the Health Care Insurance Reform Bill a provision for using the 'highest standard' of safety for all citizens NOT 'the mean' of any statistics that sides with 'risk taking,' especially when the issue is life threatening such as cancer. This is a silly recommendation and needs to be reversed. It is a direct political attack on the new Health Care Insurance Reform Bills before the legislature now.

Alaska's government squandered its 'take' on its natural resources and now it wants to kill Polar Bears. NO!!!!

Every political figure that ever ran for office, and this TYPICAL of Republicans, used the high income from the Alaskan natural resources of oil as if those wells were never going to dry up to be elected. They 'PAID' the people of the State a subsidy and BOUGHT elections.

Every elected official is GUILTY of it and absolutely at no point in time did ANY of them set up a Trust Fund for the people of Alaska to support their government or their well being. NOW, that is NOT the problem of the lower 48 OR the USA EPA OR the Polar Bears. That is the problem of a corrupt Republcan dominated party system in that state and they are all going to have to live with it now.

And NOT every drop of Alaskan oil comes down The Pipeline and NOT nearly most of the oil comes to the lower 48 states. It is sold to foreign markets. Alaska is not going to kill Polar Bears to continue to pollute our oceans no matter how much the Oil industry bellaches!

Bascially, TOO BAD. You did it all "W"rong in that state. Get over it and hope the Health Insurance Reform Bill give you all good coverage! We aren't paying for the Alaskan way of life for making the mistake of squandering your children's future on luxury and good times!

NO MORE Alaskan Oil Fields to destroy the natural biotic areas of our Wilderness. NO MORE!

On Monday, Alaskan state officials announced that the owners (click here) and operators of the bulk freighter, M/V Selendang Ayu, that sank off the north shore of Unalaska Island in the Bering Sea in 2004 have agreed to pay the state of Alaska nearly $850,000 to settle oil spill, wreck removal and lost fish tax claims.

This article from the LA Times is laughable. They show a picture of a Polar Bear in a class cage after a taxidermist got finished with it and then goes on to say how much land is devoted to the preservation of the species. The reporter writing on this subject has never even seen Polar Bear wild in the Arctic, guarantee you. And yet they can write all about it.

The Polar Bear under glass isn't even full grown. Polar Bears have 'range,' are 'territorial' and we aren't talking about a species that lives on land we are talking about a species that lives on ICE. AND. Is a Marine Mammal. It takes a lot of territory to support the GENETIC diversity of this species and the shipping channels to its territory in the USA need to be redrawn.

Critical habitat in Alaska is proposed for polar bears (click title to entry - thank you)
By Kim Murphy
October 23, 2009
It would be the largest habitat zone in the U.S., but an Interior Department official says it wouldn't slow oil and gas development, nor address the melting sea ice that threatens the bears.
Reporting from Seattle - In what would be the largest habitat zone ever established in the U.S. to protect a species from extinction, the federal government on Thursday proposed designating 200,541 square miles on the coast of Alaska as critical habitat for polar bears....

The weather at Glacier Bay National Park (Crystal Wind Chime) is very warm and there is no AGED Ice in the Arctic anymore.

This undated photo provided by the U.S. Geological Survey shows polar bear by a whale bone pile in Alaska.

This is a good opportunity to bring greater protections to the Polar Bears. So long as Alaska is stating, in opposition of even their own decades of state records, that the Polar Bear is not worthy of protections, the Protection Groups need to update their research and submit the data that will move the Polar to Endangered from Threatened based on the fact more and more of their 'home' is lost year after year. Currently the Arctic has NO 'Aged Ice,' the home of the Polar Bear. That interprets into profound danger for the species that may reach a 'tipping point' where it is unretrievable.

Keep in mind, genetic diversity is paramount to any species survival. A quick and vast reduction of that diversity will CRASH the species in the face of numbers today !!!!

Alaska fights to reverse polar bear protection listing (click title to entry - thank you)
Local Time: 4:52 PM AKST on November 16, 2009
...As Alaska North Slope wells dry up, the state is turning to potential offshore discoveries to refill the trans-Alaska pipeline and ensure the long-term prospects of a $26 billion proposed natural gas pipeline. Protections for polar bears under the Endangered Species Act could thwart that, Parnell says, adding that they're not needed....

Lat/Lon: 58.8° N 137.0° W

Elevation :: 33 ft

Temperature :: 34 °F

Conditions :: Overcast

Windchill :: 26 °F

Humidity :: 87%

Dew Point :: 30 °F

Wind :: 10 mph from the NNW

Pressure :: 29.05 in (Falling)

Visibility :: 1.8 miles

UV :: 0 out of 16

Clouds :: Overcast 800 ft
(Above Ground Level)

There is moral decay in the USA and it has nothing to do with spirituality. I ain't a preacher and don't intend to be.

There is a right and a wrong in this life. The path the USA has been traveling has been one of immoral indulgence of wealth AT THE COST of overseeing the well being of us all. It is going to stop.

There is no faith on this planet that has THE RIGHT TO DICTATE to another. NONE.

There no is man or woman alive that has THE RIGHT to pass judgement on another. NONE!

There is no political party with THE RIGHT to judge any citizen in this country as worthy of their own thoughts or their own well being. There is NO political party that has the right to deprive any citizen of this country the right to health and hence life. NONE!

Democractic US Senate contenders (from left) Michael E. Capuano, Stephen G. Pagliuca, Martha Coakley, and Alan Khazei addressed the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization’s concerns last night at Bethel AME Church in Jamaica Plain. (Photos By Matthew J. Lee/Globe Staff)

There WAS a very healthy division of church and state in this country and it needs to be reclaimed while political influence with the Republican Party would see themselves in a 'high moral ground' to turn the USA into a theocracy. It is going stop.

The race to fill the shoes of the Late Senator Edward Kennedy is a daughting one. He loved the people of Massachusetts as family and viewed the greater society of the USA the same way. I think one of the candidates running for US Senator to fill the shoes of the Late Senator Edward Kennedy had something interesting to say.

Attorney General Martha Coakley: "The American dream has been turned upside down . . . and it is time to answer yes, yes, yes, yes to all these questions,’’ she said."

I want you to look what 'the paranoid Senate' did to the page where Bill S1796 was. (click here) That link ONLY yesterday took anyone clicking on it to the Baucus Bill. That is called CENSORSHIP. Censorship is being practiced in the USA regarding the Baucus Bill.

Hello, America.

Hello?

Whatever happened to transparency and DEMOCRATIC participation in government?

Huh?

Sorry, there is no www.senate.gov web page matching your request. The address may have been typed incorrectly, the page may no longer exist, or the file may have been moved to a new location during our recent redesign.
Your request will be automatically redirected to the www.senate.gov Home page after 10 seconds.
If this problem persists, please contact the Office of the Secretary Webmaster at webmaster@sec.senate.gov.

Now, look at this (click here). Where, oh, where did the Senate Health Care Bill go, oh where oh where did it go?

Why there it is. Redirected in hopes no one could find it. AH, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Let's see if the NEW link, less than 24 hours old, opens now.

Why, there ya go (click here). Better download it to my computer before it disappears again.

My, my, my, my. Shame on them.

Page 1 seeks to capture the 'spirit' of the bill IN SMALL PRINT:

To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.

Well, they may have changed the 'statement' to ORIGINAL, rather than amending SSI LAW. It reads as below. It will show up soon enough if the bill amends the SSI laws or not. It will have to state so in the text of the bill. I don't think this was changed completely overnight either. ?????????

At any rate, I have downloaded the text as it appears today at this computer site on November 16, 2009 at 7:39 PM. There will be no additions, deletions or alterations to the bill as it appears today by me. There is no other person that accesses this computer LEGALLY either. It is my personal desktop and it is a magnificent computer. Custom made so I could read satellites and do some online gaming and accumulate large volumes of information without deleting it. Currently when I need to transfer information off this DATA BASE, I have an 80 Gig hard drive that is a peripheral for PERMANENT storage. It isn't connected to this computer EXCEPT for OFFLINE transfers.

So, with that, I can now read the bill uninterrupted. Unless the paranoid government does something stupid to it like consider it a SECURITY risk. It might be. TO THE GOP that is. Well, enough of all that.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER 19, 2009
Mr. BAUCUS, from the Committee on Finance reported the following original
bill; which was read twice and placed on the calendar

I got a problem with the first page. Good reason to hide it, I suppose.

A BILL
To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.

I have a problem with the SHORT Title on the First Page:

‘‘America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009’’

This isn't about THE FUTURE. This is about changing the face of health care insurance and health care delivery and the quality of that delivery to enhance the quality of life of all Americans. It isn't about 'futures as in stocks either.' It is not about the well being of health insurance companies OVER and ABOVE the well being of the people that are suppose to receive care, so given those words BOTHER me, I think there is a better SHORT Title to be discerned here!

Page 1, lines 6 & 7 being the Table of Contents to the Bill and it continues to the top of page 13. I am not interested in the Table of Contents or its 'correctness' to the actual content of the Bill. I don't intend to 'skim' through this babe. So. With that....

Ah, PAGE 13. PAGE 13. PAGE 13. What a damn remarkable choice of verbiage. Dear God, does anyone really consider the Baucus bill ORIGINAL or benevolent to the well being of the people of this country. LUCKY 13 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Page 13, lines 1 through 13. What is it with this 13 junk? Someone's idea of a joke. I can't wait to see page 666. Coincidence I am sure.

TITLE I—HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
Subtitle A—Insurance Market Reforms
SEC. 1001. INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS IN THE INDIVIDUAL AND SMALL GROUP MARKETS.
The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘TITLE XXII—HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
‘‘SEC. 2200. ENSURING ESSENTIAL AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH BENEFITS COVERAGE FOR ALL AMERICANS.

Does anyone want to actually call this language legitimate? I mean really. This ONLY addresses individuals and small groups? Medicare is not an individual entity nor is it a small group, how can a bill with such BROAD interest in the people of the USA be amended into issues of small groups or individuals? That doesn't make sense.

Insurance Market Reforms? Insurance Market Reforms? This isn't about the insurance market. It is about providing ACCESS to ALL Americans REGARDLESS of the Insurance Market. This isn't about supporting corporations or conglomerates in the market place. It is about the well being of the American people and access to QUALITY and affordable health care REGARDLESS of the provider.

I WANT A PUBLIC OPTION. WITHOUT QUESTION THERE IS TO BE A PUBLIC OPTION TO BE SURE THE PEOPLE OF THE USA AREN'T 'TRAPPED' IN 'REFORM' THAT DOES NOT BENEFIT THEM IN ANY CONFIGURATION OF THE MARKET.

The Baucus Bill is ILLEGIMATE. The private insurance sector of the USA is NOT to be the beneficiary of ANY legislation of the people of the United States of America. This Bill is illegitimate. It is not about THE PEOPLE as the USA Constitution dictates, it is about 'the market' (an intangible and fluctuating entity). It isn't constitutional. It does NOTHING for the people and the laws of this land are supposed to be BLIND to private entities that are ALLOWED to exist within the SOVEREIGN boundaries of the USA. Our laws are about the PEOPLE, not Wall Street. Wall Street is allowed to exist. It is NOT guaranteed rights under the Constitution of the United States of America over and above the well being of the citizens of this country.

Page 13, lines 14 through 20 and Page 14, lines 1 and 2:

‘‘It is the purpose of this title to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable and essential health benefits coverage—
‘‘(1) by requiring that all new health benefits plans offered to individuals and employees in the individual and small group markets be qualified health benefits plans that meet the insurance rating reforms and essential health benefits coverage requirements established under parts A and C;

WHERE IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL? Where is Eric Holder !?!?!?!?!?!?!

This is not about Insurance RATING reforms, it is about putting forth a law that protects the people of this country. Not reforming insurance RATES. Reforming insurance rates is not the business of the USA Constitution or its laws. Providing affordable access to the ALL the American people is what this legislation is supposed to provide.

I WANT A PUBLIC OPTION. THERE IS NO LEAVING IT OUT OF ANY BILL AND THESE "Rate Reforms" are an illegitimate use of the powers of the USA Legislature. Insurance rates are up to the companies and if they LOSE subscribers because they can't provide quality insurance at reasonable rates that is THEIR problem.

This is illegitimate use of the laws of the USA. This is practicing business with government authority.

You know what is going to happen here? There will be sculpted out some kind of understanding to provide some kind of 'RATE reform' to provide for individuals and small groups in the SSI laws and will abandon reform to those insurances that provide coverage to employees of businesses. As a consequence, the rates charged to companies for their insurance will go up without mercy and the people that work for large employers will have their rates unmercifully increased while services will diminish.

This is unacceptable law. Completely. It interfers in the private sector of this country in an inappropriate manner.

Page 14, lines 3 through 15:

‘‘(2) by establishing State exchanges under part B that provide individuals and employees in the individual and small group markets greater access to qualified health benefits plans and to information concerning these health plans;
‘‘(3) by making health benefits coverage more affordable by establishing premium credits and cost sharing subsidies under part C for individuals enrolling in a health benefits plan through an exchange; and
‘‘(4) by establishing the CO-OP program under part D to encourage the establishment of nonprofit health care cooperatives.

There is nothing comprehensive or worthwhile here. It divides benefits according to the SECTIONS of the Medicare Law. There are some benefits provider to individuals and small groups and there are some that are not. It is bad law.

To understand better what this bill does one has to realize the different aspects of the SSI law when it comes to health care. There is nothing comprehensive for people under the Baucus Bill. It divides up 'interest' in even the 'reform' it states it provides.

Part A, B, C, D 2009 (click here)

Part A: (Hospital Insurance) Premium

Part B: (Medical Insurance) Premium

Part C Overview (Medicare Advantage Plan)

Part C is the combination of Part A and Part B. The main difference in Part C is that it is provided through private insurance companies approved by Medicare. With this program, you may have lower costs and receive extra benefits.

Part D Overview
Part D is stand-alone prescription drug coverage insurance. Most people do have to pay a premium for this coverage. Plans vary and cover different drugs, but all medically necessary drugs are covered. You can choose what drug plan will be best suited to your needs.

The ONLY way small groups and individuals will receive HOSPITAL coverage under the Baucus Bill is if it is provided by private insurance companies that currently qualify under Medicare Advantage. How convenient. How much money did Medicare Advantage throw to the people that wrote this mess?

And the coop for Part D, is for PERSCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE ONLY.

I don't think so.

How is Medicare Part D ever going to provide for medical coops? Part D is about perscription drug coverage. It isn't about medical ANYTHING. Is this a joke? Because if the Baucus Bill is a joke it is a very bad one.

This has gotten on my last nerve tonight. I'll pick up again tomorrow. For now, I have something to do really worth my time.