Back to Top

Category Archives: ASS WAGON

when the war starts shoot Communists first

More Communist Party usa Crap.

They were, by law, second-class citizens. On top of that, many Black families lived in fear for their lives, especially in the South, in the face of lynchings.Much has changed since then, but much has remained the same. Racism still exists, even though it is de facto instead of de jure. All statistics point to a simple fact: African Americans, and other non-white peoples, are forced into worse lifestyles, with more poverty,less access to healthcare, and so on, than white people in general.

But today, in much of the parlance of the political left, the words of the civil rights movement have given way to a new phrase—white privilege.

According to the website www.whiteprivilege.com (which displays the headline “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity”), white privilege is “a right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by white persons beyond the common advantage of all others; an exemption in many particular cases from certain burdens or liabilities.” In short, white privilege is the denial of the rights of people of color for the benefit of all white people as a group in general.

But the term “white privilege” totally misses the point about what is behind the incidents of racial and ethnic discrimination against people of color. Can we really say that all white people benefit from racism?

Gus Hall, past presidential candidate and former General Secretary of the Communist Party USA, didn’t. In a 1987 collection of his work, Fighting Racism, Hall noted that,

Southern Black families earn 54 percent of what white families earn, whereas in the North, Black families earn 72 percent of what white families earn. If racism benefited white workers, they would be better off in the South. But look at the facts. In 1967 the average white family in the South earned $1,212 less than the average white family in the North. That means a total loss of $15 billion for all the Southern white families—most of whom are workers, of course.

What Hall was pointing out was that all workers suffer when one group is suppressed. It is simply harder to demand a wage increase from your employer if s/he can always get the job done cheaper by someone else.

Wage exploitation is not the only place where “white privilege” theory misses the point. We can see how racism, not privilege, is at play in other areas, where people of color are oppressed, causing working class whites to be deprived as well.

People of color are routinely relegated to failing schools and denied access to continuing education. When they do gain entry to universities, financial burdens often ban them from attendance. The student bodies of American institutions of higher learning are largely white, the Ivy League schools especially so. White privilege points to this as an example of white people gaining from racism. True, these white people do have it better than people of color, generally. This, however, is not the full story. Limiting access to education is the name of the game across the board.

The privatization, underfunding and closing of our public schools denies everyone without the finances to attend private schools a decent education. In addition, the overwhelming cost of a college education restricts virtually all working class people from full participation.

The majority of white people do not gain free and full quality education based on their whiteness, but must struggle along with all working and poor people to gain access. It is obviously ridiculous to the extreme to say that white people, even working class white people, don’t fare better than African Americans and other people of color. But the simple fact is that racism, which divides working class whites and Blacks from uniting to fight against an education system where really good schools are only available to the rich—not guaranteed to every single person—also harms white people. White privilege theory, far from being progressive and anti-racist, simply plays into that divide.

The same is the case with healthcare. Racism in our society has relegated people of color to the most under-funded under-staffed and ill-equipped hospitals and clinics. The health facilities in communities, of people of color are the first to face budget cuts and closings. Healthcare and coverage is by no means readily available to all whites either: over 46 million Americans were uninsured in 2006. That is not to mention those underinsured, numbering tens of thousands more. Can any of us say that all white working people have access to quality healthcare? The same dynamic is at play here: African Americans, Latinos and other minorities are specially oppressed, but this divides and harms working class white people as well.

In education, healthcare, workplaces and virtually everywhere else, the truly privileged group, the rich, enjoy all the necessities and pleasures available, and rake in billions in profits off of it all as well. On the labor front, like in Hall’s time, employers continue to pit white workers against their Black counterparts. They pit white workers against Black workers, those workers against immigrant workers, paying each section of the working class differently, in order to create animosity and division. Once again, the left should never play into this division—which is exactly what white privilege theory does.

So then, who is responsible for racism?

It is not these mythical masses of “privileged” working class white people sitting around on their benefits dreaming up ways to oppress others. It is, in fact, the corporations who use racism to divide working people from each other. A majority of these capitalists are white, but they are far from the majority of white people in the U.S. as a whole.

This highlights the main problem with the notion of white privilege. This concept directs us away from the root causes and functions of racism in a corporate dominated society. White privilege implies racism for racism’s sake, when in fact it serves a much more damaging purpose—to keep working people divided and blind to the big-business hand that’s keeping all working people down.

The notion of white privilege also alienates working class white people who, as we can conclude from the above, have a real, material stake in fighting racism. Even a first year activist knows that the crux for victory in every fight is unity. The fight against racism is no different. Unity in the fight for what all working people deserve is injured by the “divide and conquer” mentality perpetuated by the concept of white privilege. Martin Luther King Jr. exemplified this best in the campaigns of the Civil Rights Era. He proved time and time again, locally and nationally, unity proves victory.

It’s easy to see how and why many grasp onto this idea of white privilege. On the surface, it really does appear correct. White working people generally do live better than working people of color. But in the long run, this idea blurs the root problem, the real reason why whites are better off than others, and thus the real solution. If we want to get rid of racism; if we want to bring the living standards of racial minorities up to the levels of white working people, and all people up to a really decent level, we have to understand the nature of the problems we’re fighting. The terms we use must not only ring true to them, but it must also be true.

By Carl Lipscombe and Shane McEvoy

Socialism and Communism Q&A

This Q&A is from the Fuckwads at commie usp

Capitalism
Q: What is capitalism?

A: The control of commodities (goods and services) through corporations that produce only to make profits for their shareholders (the capitalist class). In contrast, socialism is the control of commodities through a government that produces only to serve people (the working class).
Q: Rich people deserve to be rich because they work harder. Why should they give up their money?

A: Capitalists gain their wealth from the labor of others–not from their own work. The workers who actually create the wealth-by picking the crops or assembling the engines, for example-should get a fair share of the wealth they create. Why should someone be a millionaire, with three houses, a private plane, and the like when other folks can’t even afford enough to eat?
Q: Aren’t people greedy by nature?

A: No. For example, in capitalist countries, little children quickly learn to share and cooperate, but they are later taught to take more than they need compete viciously in “the real world.”
Socialism and Communism
Q: How can communism be achieved in the US?

A: Unity of the working class will be needed. Workers will have to realize that capitalism cannot solve the problems it creates and that it is only beneficial to the few who own the factories, mines, press and government. Hopefully, we will achieve this in the voting booth; but if the capitalists attack, we will defend ourselves and our system.
Q: Can people decide what job they want in communist countries?

A: Yes, and better than under capitalism. Now, you get a job based on the education you receive, and the people you know: poor education + bad connections = a poor job, generally. Communism will allow people who have aptitudes for certain work the education–for free–to learn the skills it takes to do that work.
Q: Why would anyone be motivated to work hard under communism? If you work harder, shouldn’t you get more?

A: People can learn to be motivated by working for the common good. If we help each other, we both gain. Capitalism encourages us to fight against each other for crumbs, while the very few stuff themselves on the pie.
Q: Why don’t you like democracy, why is communism better?

A: Democracy and communism are not opposites. Communists believe in TRUE democracy, as opposed to our “bourgeois democracy.” What that means is when you only get to choose between millionaires running for election, working class people (the vast majority of society) aren’t really represented. Elections in a capitalist system are almost always decided by who can get the most corporate money. True democracy will be realized under communism because everyone will have an equal say in society.
Q: The world has never been fair, so how can the communists make it fair?

A: Fairness is a function of how wealth is distributed. Under capitalism, workers receive only a small percentage of the wealth that they create. Under socialism, workers receive a larger share. Under communism, workers (all people) will receive everything.
Q: What is the difference between communism and socialism?

A: The short answer is socialism is “from each according to their ability and to each according to their DEEDS,” and communism is “from each according to their ability and to each according to their NEEDS.” The longer answer is socialism is the step between capitalism and communism. Socialism still has people working for wages, therefore monetary equality has not be reached. Socialism is the society that will pave the way for a communist society by setting a foundation of co-operation and sharing of all things in common. Communism is the realization of these goals.
Q: What would be the benefits of socialism in the US?

A: Just to name a few there would be jobs for all at living wages, full equality and an end to racism, sexism and homophobia, health care for all, a right to a clean healthy environment, equal rights for immigrant workers, free public education form nursery to university, peace and solidarity.
Q: Is socialism inevitable?

A: If the human race is to survive–yes, it is. Capitalism cannot solve the problems it creates. For example, the capitalists want to pay workers less and less so they can have more and more for themselves. But when the workers have less, they can buy less, which means the capitalist end up with less as a result. It’s a vicious circle that has no solution under capitalism.
Q: Does socialism automatically end exploitation, racism, sexism and homophobia?

A: No. These societal ills are products of capitalism, but they will not vanish immediately with socialism. They have been around for centuries, and will take generations of the humanistic system of socialism and a constant struggle to cure. But, socialism will make ending these problems possible, while capitalism encourages them. At the same time, we can’t wait until “after the revolution” to fight these ills. The fight against exploitation, racism, sexism and homophobia is a crucial part of the struggle for socialism.
Q: How can you have communism and still have individual freedom?

A: By limiting bureaucracy, establishing human-rights laws (the CPUSA and YCL have always advocated bill-of-rights socialism), and reminding all workers that they need to remain involved in union and civic activities.
Q: How free are the people in communist countries? What kind of rights do they have? Can they think for themselves and make their own choices?

A: These things vary according to each socialist country. Generally, no one has the right to become wealthy or spread capitalistic propaganda. In capitalist countries, we have only illusions of freedom and democracy because the media is owned by only a few corporations and the political campaigns are financed by the billionaires.
Q: Are there taxes in communist countries?

A: Generally no. However some socialist countries levy taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.
Q: How can people get ahead in a communist country?

A: Ahead of whom? Under capitalism, people get ahead of other people. Many poor and working class people in this country consider putting food on the table being ahead of the game. Under socialism, and eventually communism, all people get ahead together with basic necessities and luxuries.
Organizing, communists, and the YCL
Q: I support what the YCL stands for, but why use the name communist?

A: By calling ourselves communists, we acknowledge certain aspects of our lives and work like the need to build working class unity and struggle for immediate needs like health care, jobs at a living wage, affirmative action, social welfare programs and much more. The fact that all of these daily stuggles fit in the overall fight for Socialism, USA makes us young communists.
Q: Why is unity so important?

A: It’s the best tool the working class has, we have strength in numbers. We are the majority in this country and world wide.Without unity, we fight each other for the crumbs while the capitalist takes the majority of the pie. With communism we each get an equal share of that pie.
Q: Do communists believe in god? Do they outlaw religion?

A: Some communists believe in god, some don’t. Gus Hall, the former chair of the CPUSA says, “Our fight is not with God, but with capitalists.” Freedom of religion would continue under communism–as long as the organized religion does not seek to destroy the system and replace it with capitalism or any other earlier system (such as slavery or feudalism).
Q: What has the YCL ever done to improve this country?

A: It has always worked to help raise class consciousness in the working class, and organize the unorganized. Along with our fraternal organization, the CPUSA, and organized labor, we have been leaders in the fights for the right to organize, unemployment insurance, social security, affirmative action, and civil rights, as well as the fights against english-only laws, immigrant bashing, hate crimes, and the like.
Q: Why do people join the YCL?

A: They see the present conditions that have been wrought by capitalism. They want to fight against racism, sexism, exploitation, homophobia, and immigrant-bashing. They want to make the US and the world a better place by fighting for jobs, justice, education and equality.
Q: Do people treat you differently if you are a communist?

A: Yes. Even those who disagree with our politics respect our work and commitment to the class struggle. Many bless us, a few curse us, but no one ignores us.
Q: Why is the working class so important?

A: We are the majority class. It is our work which creates the wealth which allows a very few people to live in obscene luxury. Because we are the majority class, we have the real power to transform society.
Q: What kind of people are in the YCL?

A: Those want to change the world into a much better place. Young people of all races, genders, religions, sexual orientations, and nationalities are in the YCL. Many types of working class youth, students and young workers of many interests like music, theater, sports, dance, visual arts and more…
Q: Do I have to be a communist to join the YCL?

A: No. If you are sincere about fighting the effects of capitalism, like racism, sexism, exploitation, lousy schools, unemployment, homelessness, and so on, you should join the YCL right away, whether you are a communist or not.
International Issues
Q: Has there ever been a communist society that succeeded?

A: Technically, there never has been a communist society. Some socialist societies, such as China, Vietnam, and Cuba are succeeding. Communism is the long term goal; just as the world has evolved from feudalism to capitalism, so it will evolve from capitalism, first through socialism (in which the working class is dominant), then eventually to communism (in which there are no classes). Our job is to hasten that evolution.
Q: What communist countries still exist?

A: China, Vietnam, North Korea, Laos and Cuba are socialist states.
Q: Was the Soviet Union a real communist country?

A: No. It was a socialist.
Q: Why did communism fail in the Soviet Union?

A: There are many reasons why socialism fell in the Soviet Union. One reason was because of the Cold War. Capitalist countries were able to spend more on the cold war and the Soviet Union tried too hard to compete. For example, Reagan was able to build a greater military force by obscenely increasing our national debt. Overall it is very hard for a socialist country to survive with imperial powers breathing down their necks. There were both errors that the Communist officials made within the country and forces from outside that tainted the gains of the revolution.
Q: Why do so many people want to leave Cuba?

A: Relatively few want to leave. They have all suffered due to our 40-year blockade, but most do not believe that they can become wealthy capitalists by leaving Cuba.
Q: Is Cuba a dictatorship?

A: No. Although the Cuban people have a strong central government, they are very active in local and national democratic elections, especially through their union activities.

 

Best Daily Caller comment

HOW TO INSTALL A SOUTHERN HOME SECURITY SYSTEM

1. Go to a secondhand store and buy a pair of men’s used size 14-16 work
boots.

2. Place them on your front porch, along with a copy of Guns & Ammo
Magazine.

3. Put four giant dog dishes next to the boots and magazines.

4. Leave a note on your door that reads:

“Bubba,

Bertha, Duke, Slim, & I went for more ammo and beer. Be back in an hour.
Don’t mess with the pit bulls; they attacked the mailman this morning and
messed him up bad. I don’t think Fang took part, but it was hard to tell
from all the blood. Anyway, I locked all four of ’em in the house.

Better wait outside. Be right back.

“Cooter”
Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.  Ken_NY

commented on this story at http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/16/call-to-arms-texas-am-law-prof-says-its-time-to-repeal-second-amendment/#

Noting her own outrage that Americans continue to tolerate gun violence, Penrose asked audience members to raise their hands if they thought laws intended to prevent gun violence have been successful. No one raised a hand.

SO MORE LAWS WILL HELP???  OH just one more law NO GUNS

“The beauty of a ‘states’ rights model’ solution is it allows those of you who want to live in a state with strong restrictions to do so and those who want to live in a state with very loose restrictions to do so,” the professor explained.

RIGHT LIKE ABORTION rowe v wade should be ousted in favor for States to VOTE  like she said.

kill the enemy as one would a rabid animal

Best Blaze Comment
This brings back the painful memory of a cook in my unit in Germany the day our chaplain broke the news that his brother was on PanAm flight 103 that was also taken down by a Libyan terrorist’s bomb. One of my subordinate’s was also in the Berlin disco that was bombed by Libyan terrorists (the Libyan government). He survived and still has shrapnel working it’s way out of his back.

My son deploys to Afghanistan later this month. He knows to remove the politics from his mind and understands that the innocent deaths of thousands of Americans are a just and proper cause to let loose hell on those that perpetrated these acts or plan future acts of terrorism. He understands to remove the emotion that clouds judgement and kill the enemy as one would a rabid animal: You don’t hate the animal, but kill it nonetheless because it is the right thing to do and not lose a seconds sleep over it.

ABM4CG

Nov. 4, 2013 at 2:38pm

Posted in Best Blaze Comment, Islam, Muslim| Tagged |

Give Grandma A Pill: The complete lives system

#Obamacare How It Will Kill You: The complete lives system discriminates against older people…

The proposal made by DALY advocates; however, the complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value. Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them. Conversely,DALY allocation treats life-years given to elderly or disabled people as objectively less valuable. Finally, the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.

Objections
We consider several important objections to the complete lives system. The complete lives system discriminates against older people.
Age-based allocation is ageism.
Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age.
Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.
Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not. Age, like income, is a “non-medical criterion” inappropriate for allocation of medical resource

 

[xyz-ihs snippet=”7″]

Ezekiel Emanuel: COMPLETE LIVES SYSTEM

ObamaCare means rationing of health care services. Obama dodges and weaves on that, trying to avoid admitting that care will indeed be rationed.


He, of course, doesn’t want the public to understand what government-run health care would really entail.

At his alleged town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire yesterday, (actually, it was more like a campaign rally), Obama extolled the wisdom of “expert health panels” and their role in government-run health care.

OBAMA: In terms of these expert health panels — well, this goes to the point about “death panels” — that’s what folks are calling them. The idea is actually pretty straightforward, which is if we’ve got a panel of experts, health experts, doctors, who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations, and find ways to reduce, for example, the number of tests that people take — these aren’t going to be forced on people, but they will help guide how the delivery system works so that you are getting higher-quality care.

Obama touts the judgment of these “expert health panels.”

One such “health expert” is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a top adviser to Obama.

Ezekiel Emanuel has a system for determining how to allocate health services. (Allocating, in effect, is rationing.)

Emanuel promotes the “Complete Lives System” as a way to decide who gets treatment and who is denied.

From The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9661, Pages 423 – 431, 31 January 2009, Emanuel writes:

The complete lives system

Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. As such, it prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of distributive justice: “individual human lives, rather than individual experiences, [are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate.” Although there are important differences between these thinkers, they share a core commitment to consider entire lives rather than events or episodes, which is also the defining feature of the complete lives system.

Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfilment requires a complete life. As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, “It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does”; this argument is supported by empirical surveys. Importantly, the prioritisation of adolescents and young adults considers the social and personal investment that people are morally entitled to have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the results of an unjust status quo. Consequently, poor adolescents should be treated the same as wealthy ones, even though they may have received less investment owing to social injustice.

The complete lives system also considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable. Some small benefits, such as a few weeks of life, might also be intrinsically insignificant when compared with large benefits.

Saving the most lives is also included in this system because enabling more people to live complete lives is better than enabling fewer. In a public health emergency, instrumental value could also be included to enable more people to live complete lives. Lotteries could be used when making choices between roughly equal recipients, and also potentially to ensure that no individual—irrespective of age or prognosis—is seen as beyond saving. Thus, the complete lives system is complete in another way: it incorporates each morally relevant simple principle.

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated. It therefore superficially resembles the proposal made by DALY advocates; however, the complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value. Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them. Conversely, DALY allocation treats life-years given to elderly or disabled people as objectively less valuable.

Finally, the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.

Objections
We consider several important objections to the complete lives system.
The complete lives system discriminates against older people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.

Age, like income, is a “non-medical criterion” inappropriate for allocation of medical resources. In contrast to income, a complete life is a health outcome. Long-term survival and life expectancy at birth are key health-care outcome variables. Delaying the age at onset of a disease is desirable.

The complete lives system is insensitive to international differences in typical lifespan. Although broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over the very elderly people, implementation can reasonably differ between, even within, nation-states. Some people believe that a complete life is a universal limit founded in natural human capacities, which everyone should accept even without scarcity. By contrast, the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a complete life, however defined, as an important good, and accept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources.

Principles must be ordered lexically: less important principles should come into play only when more important ones are fulfilled. Rawls himself agreed that lexical priority was inappropriate when distributing specific resources in society, though appropriate for ordering the principles of basic social justice that shape the distribution of basic rights, opportunities, and income.1 As an alternative, balancing priority to the worst-off against maximising benefits has won wide support in discussions of allocative local justice. As Amartya Sen argues, justice “does not specify how much more is to be given to the deprived person, but merely that he should receive more”.

Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending. The complete lives system explicitly rejects waste and corruption, such as multiple listing for transplantation. Although it may be applicable more generally, the complete lives system has been developed to justly allocate persistently scarce life-saving interventions. Hearts for transplant and influenza vaccines, unlike money, cannot be replaced or diverted to non-health goals; denying a heart to one person makes it available to another. Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create “classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on”, but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.

Legitimacy
As well as recognising morally relevant values, an allocation system must be legitimate. Legitimacy requires that people see the allocation system as just and accept actual allocations as fair. Consequently, allocation systems must be publicly understandable, accessible, and subject to public discussion and revision. They must also resist corruption, since easy corruptibility undermines the public trust on which legitimacy depends. Some systems, like the UNOS points systems or QALY systems, may fail this test, because they are difficult to understand, easily corrupted, or closed to public revision. Systems that intentionally conceal their allocative principles to avoid public complaints might also fail the test.

Although procedural fairness is necessary for legitimacy, it is unable to ensure the justice of allocation decisions on its own. Although fair procedures are important, substantive, morally relevant values and principles are indispensable for just allocation.

Conclusion
Ultimately, none of the eight simple principles recognise all morally relevant values, and some recognise irrelevant values. QALY and DALY multiprinciple systems neglect the importance of fair distribution. UNOS points systems attempt to address distributive justice, but recognise morally irrelevant values and are vulnerable to corruption. By contrast, the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis, lottery, and saving the most lives. In pandemic situations, it also allocates scarce interventions to people instrumental in realising these four principles. Importantly, it is not an algorithm, but a framework that expresses widely affirmed values: priority to the worst-off, maximising benefits, and treating people equally. To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo.

Age-based priority for receiving scarce medical interventions under the complete lives system

Emanuel, WHITE HOUSE HEALTH CARE POLICY ADVISER, has some very scary ideas about who’s fit to live and who’s life has been full enough. 

Look at the chart. Determining whether to permit medical intervention on a curve?

Should older Americans be concerned about this? I think so. The very young are also targeted.

At his event in Portsmouth yesterday, Obama tried to convince Americans that rationing won’t occur under his single payer plan.

But we’ve seen how socialized medicine works. It doesn’t raise the standards of care for everyone. It creates scarcity. Quality care? Forget it.

Obama mocked opponents who point out that a government-run health care system bent on trimming expenses will mean cutting services.

OBAMA: Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for “death panels” that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t — it’s too expensive to let her live anymore. And there are various — there are some variations on this theme.

The Complete Lives System does “pull the plug on grandma.”

Emanuel is an “expert” Obama admires.

As Obama said in Portsmouth, “[W]e’ve got a panel of experts, health experts, doctors, who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations.”

These same experts also will provide guidelines to doctors about what procedures will not be allowed.

Remember what Obama said on ABC during his health care infomercial in response to this question from Jane Sturm: 

OBAMA: We’re not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves.

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system, that’s not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs, that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.

If the “expert health panel” deems certain treatments not cost effective, the government will be pulling the plug on “grandma.”
_________________

euthanasia for children motivated by compassion and protection WTF LIBS

Coming to an Obamacare program near you. Should children have the right to ask for their own deaths?  This is what the Liberals have been up to while you weren’t looking. I seam to recall that Hitler started out like this “kill the infirm” for “compassion” to “Kill the Jews” for the “country”. From the Unborn to the Born from the Infirm to Me and You the Liberal Nazis will KILL anyone that is an inconvenience to them.

site_baby

reet-TheObamaPlan8 

 

 

 

 

 

Associated Press,

In Belgium, where euthanasia is now legal for people over the age of 18, the government is considering extending it to children — something that no other country has done. The same bill would offer the right to die to adults with early dementia.

Advocates argue that euthanasia for children, with the consent of their parents, is necessary to give families an option in a desperately painful situation. But opponents have questioned whether children can reasonably decide to end their own lives.
Belgium is already a euthanasia pioneer; it legalized the practice for adults in 2002. In the last decade, the number of reported cases per year has risen from 235 deaths in 2003 to 1,432 in 2012, the last year for which statistics are available. Doctors typically give patients a powerful sedative before injecting another drug to stop their heart.

Only a few countries have legalized euthanasia or anything approaching it. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is legal under specific circumstances and for children over the age of 12 with parental consent (there is an understanding that infants, too, can be euthanized, and that doctors will not be prosecuted if they act appropriately). Elsewhere in Europe, euthanasia is only legal in Luxembourg. Assisted suicide, where doctors help a patient to die but do not actively kill them, is allowed in Switzerland.

In the U.S., the state of Oregon also grants assisted suicide requests for residents aged 18 or over with a terminal illness.

In Belgium, the ruling Socialist party has proposed the bill expanding the right of euthanasia. The Christian Democratic Flemish party vowed to oppose the legislation and to challenge it in the European Court of Human Rights if it passes. A final decision must be approved by Parliament and could take months.

In the meantime, the Senate has heard testimony on both sides of the issue.

“It is strange that minors are considered legally incompetent in key areas, such as getting married, but might (be able) to decide to die,” Catholic Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard testified.

Leonard said alternatives like palliative sedation make euthanasia unnecessary — and relieves doctors of the burden of having to kill patients. In palliative sedation, patients are sedated and life-sustaining support is withdrawn so they starve to death; the process can take days.

But the debate has extended to medical ethicists and professionals far from Belgium. Charles Foster, who teaches medical law and ethics at Oxford University, believes children couldn’t possibly have the capacity to make an informed decision about euthanasia since even adults struggle with the concept.

“It often happens that when people get into the circumstances they had so feared earlier, they manage to cling on all the more,” he said. “Children, like everyone else, may not be able to anticipate how much they will value their lives if they were not killed.”

There are others, though, who argue that because Belgium has already approved euthanasia for adults, it is unjust to deny it to children.

 

“The principle of euthanasia for children sounds shocking at first, but it’s motivated by compassion and protection,” said John Harris, a professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester. “It’s unfair to provide euthanasia differentially to some citizens and not to others (children) if the need is equal.”

And Dr. Gerlant van Berlaer, a pediatric oncologist at the Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussels hospital, says the changes would legalize what is already happening informally. He said cases of euthanasia in children are rare and estimates about 10 to 100 cases in Belgium every year might qualify.

“Children have different ways of asking for things but they face the same questions as adults when they’re terminally sick,” van Berlaer said. “Sometimes it’s a sister who tells us her brother doesn’t want to go back to the hospital and is asking for a solution,” he said. “Today if these families find themselves (in that situation), we’re not able to help them, except in dark and questionable ways.”

The change in the law regarding people with dementia is also controversial.

People now can make a written declaration they wish to be euthanized if their health deteriorates, but the request is only valid for five years and they must be in an irreversible coma. The new proposal would abolish the time limit and the requirement the patient be in a coma, making it possible for someone who is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s to be put to death years later in the future.

In the Netherlands, guidelines allow doctors to euthanize dementia patients on this basis if they believe the person is experiencing “unbearable suffering,” but few are done in practice.

Dr. Patrick Cras, a neurologist at the University of Antwerp, said people with dementia often change their minds about wanting to die.

“They may turn into different people and may not have the same feelings about wanting to die as when they were fully competent,” he said. “I don’t see myself killing another person if he or she isn’t really aware of exactly what’s happening simply on the basis of a previous written request (to have euthanasia). I haven’t fully made up my mind but I think this is going too far.”

Penney Lewis, a professor and medical law expert at King’s College London, agreed that carrying out euthanasia requests on people with dementia once they start to worsen could be legally questionable.

“But if you don’t let people make decisions that will be respected in the future, including euthanasia, what you do is encourage people to take their own life while they have the capacity or to seek euthanasia much earlier,” she said.

In the past year, several cases of Belgians who weren’t terminally ill but were euthanized — including a pair of 43-year-old deaf twins who were going blind and a patient in a botched sex change operation — have raised concerns the country is becoming too willing to euthanize its citizens. The newest proposals have raised eyebrows even further.

“People elsewhere in Europe are focused on assisted dying for the terminally ill and they are running away from what’s happening in Belgium,” Lewis said. “If the Belgian statutes go ahead, this will be a key boundary that is crossed.”

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Sheik Gleefully Smashes Statue of the Virgin Mary

“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance” – Barak Huessin Obama

SHEIK GLEEFULLY SMASHES STATUE OF THE VIRGIN MARY IN SYRIA: ‘ALLAH ALONE WILL BE WORSHIPPED…’Oct. 31, 2013 12:30am Erica Ritz The Blaze

Radical Islam,SyriaSheik Omar Raghba was caught on video gleefully smashing a statue of the Virgin Mary in the Yakubiya village of Syria, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute MEMRI.In video posted on the Internet on October 23, Raghba remarked with a smile: “Allah willing, Allah alone will be worshiped in the Levant, which will be ruled only by the law of Allah. The idols will be worshiped no more in the Levant, Allah willing.”“We shall accept nothing but Allah, his religion, and the Sunnah of his prophet,” he continued.And at that the man hurled the statue to the floor, where it was smashed to bits.Photo via MEMRI-TVPhoto via MEMRI-TV“Say ‘Allah akbar!’” the group urges as the sheik saunters away.“Allah akbar,” he obliges with a wave.Watch the complete video below, courtesy of MEMRI-TV:-

via Sheik Gleefully Smashes Statue of the Virgin Mary in Syria: ‘Allah Alone Will Be Worshipped…’ | TheBlaze.com.

Posted in ASS WAGON, Barack Obama, Blog page, Islam, Muslim, Obama| Tagged |

Saudi cleric -babies in burka, to reduce-being molested.

“Earlier this year, another Saudi cleric called on parents to dress their female babies in a burka, to reduce their chance of being molested.”

Blaze comment by SATX 19Oct. 30, 2013 at 2:53pm
@whodumber…
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” The quote comes from page 261 of the paperback edition of “The Audacity of Hope -Barak Hussein Obama
“The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer” – Barak Huessin Obama
“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance” – Barak Huessin Obama
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation” – Barak Huessin Obama
And of course, “Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” – Barak Hussein Obama

Editor’s note: This story contains graphic descriptions. Oct. 30, 2013 1:41pm Sharona Schwartz / TheBlaze

Some crimes are so horrific they defy comprehension. Here is one such case being reported by Persian Gulf media.

Saudi Men Accused of Gang Raping a 3 Year Old (Yes, a 3 Year Old)
The Arabic language daily Okaz published this photo with its story about the reported gang rape of the 3-year-old girl. (Image source: Okaz via Emirates 24/7)
A 3-year-old girl in Saudi Arabia was reportedly raped by a group of men. After taking turns violating the toddler, the men dumped her near a hospital where she was classified in serious condition, the website Emirates 24/7 reported.

Though the attack reportedly occurred last month, police revealed the incident only this past Monday, saying they had arrested three suspects along with two women in connection with the attack.

Doctors at a hospital in Jeddah say the girl is still in a coma and fighting for her life, Gulf News reported.

“She has been raped violently by some men. She was found crying of excruciating pain as her body was full of bruises and her sensitive parts were ruptured,” hospital manager Mohammed Ali told the Saudi Arabia oulet Okaz, as reported by the English-language Emirates 24/7.

Ali said the girl’s clothes were torn and she was bleeding from the vagina.

An eyewitness, Abdullah Mohammad Nasser, was quoted by Gulf News saying he saw a car dump the girl at the front gate and then speed away

“These are human wolves and worse than animals. They have violated all human and religious values with this heinous crime,” the hospital manager said. “We hope she will respond to treatment and recover although doctors believe she will suffer from a trauma for the rest of her life.”

Earlier this month, a Saudi preacher convicted of torturing his 5-year-old daughter with a cane and cables and beating her to death in 2011 was sentenced to eight years in prison and 600 lashes after paying blood money to the family of the girl’s mother. The killing was reportedly motivated by the father’s suspicions about the girl’s virginity.

Earlier this year, another Saudi cleric called on parents to dress their female babies in a burka, to reduce their chance of being molested.

Blaze comment by

SLAPTHELEFT

Oct. 30, 2013 at 3:30pm

When you have to dress your toddlers in a burqa to reduce the chances of them being molested, it lets you know what type of perverts you are dealing with.

I guess they are just following in mohammeds footsteps

child rape cases increased from 668 in 2002 to 2,788 last year.

Oct. 30, 2013 10:16am 

A 13-year-old Pakistani girl was raped by two men and buried alive but managed to extract herself from the shallow grave after regaining consciousness, according to local news reports and the New York Post.

The girl was reportedly attacked in an isolated location in the Punjab province as she was on her way to a religious seminary for Koran lessons, the website Outlook India reports.

Her father, Siddique Mughal, told police about the abduction. He told Outlook India that the two men had thought she had died during the brutal assault, thus they buried her on the side of the road.

The girl, however, regained consciousness and managed to dig herself out of the mud. A passerby then took her to a local health center.

13 Year Old Girl Digs Herself out of Grave After Being Raped and Buried Alive by Two Men
File photo: Getty Images
Mughal claims that the police refused to cooperate, but that the Lahore High Court Chief Justice’s Complaint Cell instructed them to arrest attackers immediately.

Pakistan faces the challenge of putting an end to child rape, as some believe that HIV can be cured by having sex with a virgin, according to the children’s charity Sahil.

Sahil tells the International Business Times that child rape cases increased from 668 in 2002 to 2,788 last year.

“We still think these statistics are just a fraction of what’s going on,” Executive Director Manizeh Bano tells International Business Times.

FCC to police media, BLOGGERS THAT’S YOU

this new step will eventually give the FCC the power to take out websites like TheBonfireMedia, TheBlaze and many others. Your VOICE must be stopped because it’s harming Obama and the Big Govt. Libs.

The Federal Communications Commission is planning a broad probe of political speech across media platforms, an unprecedented move that raises serious First Amendment concerns.

The FCC’s proposed “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” which is set to begin a field test in a single market with an eye toward a comprehensive study in 2014, would collect a remarkably wide range of information on demographics, point of view, news topic selection, management style and other factors in news organizations both in and out of the FCC’s traditional purview.

The airwaves regulator would also subject news producers in all media to invasive questioning about their work and content.

A methodology worked up by Silver Spring, Maryland-based Social Solutions International (SSI) says that in addition to its general evaluation of news content, the survey will include a “qualitative component” featuring interrogations of news organization owners, management and employees.

Among the questions federal contractors will be asking of private media companies:

For media owners:

“What is the news philosophy of the station?”

For editors, producers and managers:

“Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic ‘beats’? If so how many and what are the beats?”

“Who decides which stories are covered?”

For reporters:

“Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?” (Followup questions ask the reporter to speculate on why a particular story was spiked.)

According to a May article in Communications Daily, Social Solutions International will be paid $917,823 for the study, which also questions news consumers about their habits and numerically codes news content according to how well, in the FCC’s view, it meets the “critical information needs” (CIN) of particular “communities.”

“The FCC has a duty to make sure that the industries it regulates serve the needs of the American public no matter where they live or what financial resources they have,” acting FCC chairwoman Mignon Clyburn said in a May announcement of the survey. “The research design we announce today is an important next step in understanding what those needs are, how Americans obtain the information critical to their daily lives in a dynamic technological environment, and what barriers exist in our media ecologies to providing and accessing this information.”

Other observers take a less sanguine view of the proposal.

“In this study, the FCC will delve into the editorial discretion of newspapers, web sites and radio and TV stations,” Hudson Institute Fellow Robert McDowell, who served as an FCC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, told The Daily Caller. “This starts sticking the government’s nose into what has traditionally been privileged and protected ground. Regardless of one’s political stripes, one should be concerned.”

via FCC to police media, question reporters in content survey | The Daily Caller.

Nancy Pelosi still an AssWagon

Nancy Pelosi still insists that Obamacare will improve the lives of average Americans, despite over 20 reports indicating otherwise.

“Because of the law, in the coming months Americans will have expanded choices and more affordable care.” Pelosi said at a recent Capitol Hill briefing. “We will be enhancing patients’ rights, putting money back in the pockets of consumers, reducing costs and strengthening the economic, financial, and health security of working families.”

She goes further to say that Obamacare will even lower the nation’s debt.

“The Affordable Care Act is bringing the cost of health care in our country down in both the public and private sector,” said Pelosi. “And that is what is largely responsible for the deficit coming down.”

But what she doesn’t realize is that her numbers are flawed.

“Despite promises that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially,” a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. “The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law’s higher costs.”

The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face “significant premium increases.”

Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%.

Editor’s Note: How much extra will you have to pay? To see how much Obamacare will take from your paycheck next year, go here.

On top of higher premiums, Obamacare will create no fewer than twenty new taxes or tax hikes on the American people.

Most of the new taxes go into effect January 1, 2014, but they are already infuriating millions of Americans.

The Obama administration has even given the IRS an extra $500 million to enforce the rules and regulations of Obamacare.

The new taxes don’t bode well for middle-class Americans. Incomes for the rich have soared this decade but middle class workers have seen their wages stagnate and even drop since the 2008 Great Recession.

Many fear Obamacare with its high insurance costs and new taxes, could provide the middle class a fatal blow.

Of course, the Obamacare plan was primarily designed to decrease the number of uninsured Americans and reduce healthcare costs.

Experts are saying it will have the exact opposite effect. In fact, it’s estimated that Obamacare will cost the average taxpayer nearly $6,000 in extra taxes as early as next year.

A McKinsey report now estimates Obamacare will cost taxpayers at least an additional $400 billion more than originally proposed.

And another study done by the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare won’t actually expand coverage and that the number of uninsured under Obamacare won’t ever fall below 30 million.

Perhaps worse than anything, is that millions of Americans will now lose their full-time jobs.

That’s a big reason why close to two-thirds of the country do not approve of Obamacare, according to recent polls.

Many are still furious over how the Democratically-controlled Congress passed this bill, which many scholars deem unconstitutional.

“Bipartisanship is a two-way street,” Pelosi said before Congress voted on the law. “A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes…We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”

If Congress had read the bill before passing it they should have noticed one section of the law that says you could get slapped with a $2,000 fine for not having health insurance – even if you do actually have it.

Or another section that says that under Obamacare ordinary Americans will get stuck paying for substance abuse coverage even if they never touched a drink or drug in their life.

Can the U.S. government really put you in jail for not buying health insurance?Go here to see the shocking story.

With the implementation of Obamacare quickly approaching, millions of Americans are asking what they can do to prepare for all the new costs and rules.

One expert, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant Governor of New York and constitutional scholar with a Ph.D. from Columbia University, recently wrote a best-selling book showing Americans how they can survive Obamacare.

McCaughey is one of the only people in the country — including members of Congress – who has actually read the entire 2,572 page law.

Her book, titled Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for Surviving the New Health Care Lawbreaks down the complicated bill into 168 pages of actionable advice.

The book, written in an easy going, easy to read style, examines the implications of Obamacare not seen in the mainstream press.

“Section 1501 of Obamacare requires nearly everyone to enroll in a one-size fits all, government-designed health insurance plan. For the first time in history, this law empowers the federal government to control how doctors treat privately insured patients,” McCaughey writes. “So even if you have your own private health plan that you paid for yourself, the government will have say over your care.”

She says that higher costs are only one negative of Obamacare. Doctors, nurses and other hospital employees will suffer from the government’s interference in healthcare. This will trickle down to poorer patient care.

What’s more, one third of all U.S. employers could stop offering health insurance to their workers, says McCaughey.

In fact, corporations including GE, IBM, and Time Warner have already said they will stop providing insurance for hundreds of thousands of employees.

McCaughey also exposes several sections of the bill that empower Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to dictate what doctors can and cannot do.

“Section 4104(a), empowers Sebelius to reduce preventive services for seniors based on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,” McCaughey notes. “This is the panel that said women ages forty to forty-nine and older than seventy-four should no longer get routine mammograms.”

And according to McCaughey’s research, senior citizens will get hit the hardest from Obamacare. “If you’re a senior or a baby boomer, expect less care than in the past,” she says. “Hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery will be especially hard to get from Medicare in the months ahead.”

She warns seniors to get some of those types of procedures done now before Obamacare goes into full effect, as Obamacare awards bonus points to hospitals that spend the least on seniors.

Lastly, many will find it difficult to keep their medical records private, according to McCaughey.

“The law will compel Americans to share with millions of strangers who are not physicians confidential private and personal medical history information they do not wish to share”

Editor’s Note: Real facts and figures about the hidden Obamacare taxes and fees and how they will affect everyday Americans and seniors are hard to find. As a courtesy, Money Morning is giving readers a free copy of Betsy McCaughey’s new book Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for Surviving The New Health Care Law. But only a limited number of copies are available. Please go here to reserve yours today.

Glen Beck? that hateful, nasty racist!

I like Mike even more NOW

Shannon K. Walsh wrote, “Mike – How could you associate with such a horrible and psychotic person that is Glen Beck? I wouldn’t accept a dime off that hateful, nasty racist. Very disappointed to see this post.”

Well, hi there, Shannon – and a pleasant good morning to you too!

If you want a detailed answer to your question, please take a moment to read my earlier reply to Bob Reidel, another crestfallen soul who couldn’t reconcile my association with a TV host that he personally despised. As you read it (out loud, if possible, and in a public place), kindly replace the words “Bob Reidel” with “Shannon K. Walsh,” and “Bill Maher” with “Glenn Beck.” But prepare yourself – you might be forced to conclude that my true objective here has little to do with winning or losing your approval.

It’s here: http://on.fb.me/1a8LsPL

As for your personal characterization of Glenn Beck, I can only assume you have information not available to me. In my time with him, I saw nothing “horrible, psychotic, hateful, or nasty.” I smelled no burning sulphur, no smoldering brimstone, and saw no sign of cloven hooves.

To the contrary, I found a very passionate guy who employs about 300 people, works his butt off, and puts his money where his mouth is. Do we agree on everything? Of course not. Am I “disappointed” by that fact? Not at all. The real question, Shannon, is … why are you?

To be clear, I’m not here to tell you what to think or whom to hate. Like everyone else, you’re free to pick your devils, choose your angels, and attach the horns and halos accordingly.

But the guts of your question – even without all the name-calling and acrimony – reveal the essence of what’s broken in our country. You want to know “how I can associate” with someone you don’t like? The short answer is, how can I not? How are we ever going to accomplish anything in this incredibly divisive time if we associate only with people that we don’t disagree with?

Mike

PS. Not only did Glenn hand me a check for $25,000 made out to the mikeroweWORKS scholarship fund, he invited me to shoot a few PSAs on his set and offered to air them on his network for free. You know how many other networks have offered to do that? Not one. In addition, his viewers have purchased hundreds and hundreds of Work Smart AND Hard posters. I’m already getting photos of them hanging in high schools across the country. Glenn also signed one, and took some artistic license on my face. Which made me laugh. We’ll auction that off on a future episode of C.R.A.P., and my guess is we’ll raise a pretty penny.

PPS Penn Jillette is an avowed atheist. Glenn Beck is a deeply religious Christian. They disagree on a lot, but speak often on Glenn’s show, and have some of the most respectful and interesting exchanges on television today. Here’s an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZnE1XEv0xU

I’ve been on every network over the years, more than once, and I’ll promise you this – if you want the potential for a thoughtful exchange that’s not crammed into a five-minute segment, your options are limited.

Real Time is one possibility. Glenn Beck is another. I’m glad to have done both.

— with Bill Maher and Glenn Beck.

[Bob Reidel: “Mike – Saw you hangin with Bill Maher. I had no idea you were a liberal. Really blew me away. Love everything you do but now that I know who you really are, I won’t be tuning in to watch anything your involved with.”]

Well, hi there, Bob. How’s it going? Since your comment is not the only one of its kind, I thought I’d take a moment to address it.

Bill Maher is opinionated, polarizing and controversial. I get it. So is Bill O’Reilly, which is probably why I heard the same comments after I did his show. (“How could you Mike? How could you?”)

Truth is, every time I go on Fox, my liberal friends squeal. And every time I show up on MSNBC, my conservative pals whine. Not because they disagree with my position – everyone agrees that closing the skills gap is something that needs to happen. No, these days, people get bent simply if I appear on shows they don’t like, or sit too close to people they don’t care for.

What’s up with that? Is our country so divided that my mere proximity to the “other side” prompts otherwise sensible adults to scoop up their marbles and go home?

Back in 2008, I wrote an open letter to President Obama, offering to help him promote those 3 million “shovel-ready” jobs he promised to create during his campaign. (I suspected they might be a tough sell, given our country’s current relationship with the shovel.) Within hours, hundreds of conservatives accused me of “engaging with a socialist,” and threatened to stop watching Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe if I didn’t come to my senses.

When I made the same offer to Mitt Romney (who actually responded), thousands of liberals chastised me for “engaging with a greedy capitalist,” and threatened to stop watching Dirty Jobs if I didn’t take it back.

You may ask, “But what did these people think about the issue at hand?” Who knows? They were too busy being outraged by my proximity to the devil. (Poor Ed Shultz at MSNBC nearly burst into tears. “You were on the wrong stage, Mike! The wrong stage!! With the wrong candidate!!!”)

Oy.

Here’s the thing, Bob – Profoundly Disconnected (http://profoundlydisconnected.com/) is not a PR campaign for Mike Rowe. It’s a PR campaign for skilled labor and alternative education. PR campaigns need … that’s right, PR, and if I limit my appearances to those shows that I personally watch, hosted only by those personalities with whom I personally agree, I might as well start a church and preach to the choir.

Point is, I didn’t go on Real Time to endorse BM, and I didn’t go on The Factor to endorse BO. I went on because millions of people watch those shows. I approached our liberal president for the same reason. Likewise, his conservative opponent. And I showed up on Sesame Street with the same agenda that I took to Congress.

Closing the skills gap is bigger than you or me or any particular venue, and Real Time gave me an opportunity to reach 5 million people. I’m grateful for that, and I’ll do it again if they want me back.

As for Bill Maher off-camera, you’ll be pleased to know that the guy was a perfect gentleman. His staff is excellent, and his after-party included an open bar with a spread I’ve never seen in such a setting. Bill took the time to hang out with his guests and their friends after the show, chatting about this and that for over an hour, and taking pictures with anyone who wanted one. Trust me, that’s rare.

Yes, he’s outrageous, inflammatory, and to many, a jagged little pill. But he’s also gracious, generous, engaging, and taller than he appears on TV.

Which, frankly, surprised me.

Posted in Glenn Beck, Obama| Tagged , |

Kerry Says World Leaders Mocked Him

Kerry Says World Leaders Mocked Him Over Shutdown

Im sure it’s not over the shutdown John it’s that they’ve seen The Addams Family and their making jokes behind your back or to your face as i would. 

download (2)images (3) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just how bad was the shutdown for America’s image on the world stage? So bad, says Secretary of State John Kerry, that foreign officials joked about buying him meals.

“I have seen how our allies, our partners and those who wish to challenge us or to do us harm are all sizing us up every day,” Kerry said at an event hosted by Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “What we do in Washington matters deeply…that’s why a self-inflicted wound like the shutdown can never happen again.”

Kerry added that the shutdown delayed security aid to Israel. “The dysfunction and the shutdown and the simplistic dialogue that came with it didn’t impress anyone,” he said.

The federal government was mostly shuttered for 16 days after House Republicans refused to sign off on a budget unless it stripped away funding for President Obama’s health care law. The impasse was condemned repeatedly by the Democratic leaders and progressive policymakers at the conference.

“I do love this country, damnit, and this country is in deep trouble,” declared former Vice President Al Gore. “What happened down there on Capitol Hill was pathetic.”

The shutdown sent the GOP’s approval ratings spiraling downward, leading some Democrats to think they might be able to take over the House in the 2014 mid-term election. “If they stay on course Democrats have a good chance,” said Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a former congressman who led the Democratic Party’s House campaign committee. “If they reverse course than it’s a district by district scenario.

Gerrymandering by GOP-led state legislatures, however, have left few competitive seats. “This is a map that the Republicans designed nationwide,” Emanuel said. “If you want to win it back, you have to pick the lock nationwide.”

#obamacare funny stuff on healthcaredotgov

  • Health Insurance Blog

    We’re listening — and improving every day

    I can see my health care plan options now, but there’s no way to see any kind of detail about them. How can anybody make a decision based on the name of the plan and the price? There are specific things I need to have covered and I can’t make a decision without more information.

    • I could not agree with you more LOL Its kinda like buying a car or a house without so much as a picture to go by and just hoping it will be decent once you’ve bought it..I really hope they fix that.

    • You can’t. They aren’t telling the truth in this blog.

  • Why can’t I see the deductibles?

    • They might scare you

      • Hard-working Americans are doomed under this ACA mess. We desperately need to return to our heritage– a freedom-loving country where results are rewarded. Obamacare, simply put, redistributes income, stealing from some to give to others. Premiums for many of those not qualified for handouts (“subsidies”) have already skyrocketed–and will only get worse. People are forced to buy coverage that they don’t even need–e.g., a single man does not need maternity care– and others are compelled to pay for coverage that violates deeply held convictions (e.g., morning-after pill). Meanwhile, Congress has exempted some (including themselves!) from ACA provisions. ACA is unfair, against American principles, and end harmful for us all. We must elect those who will rid us of this awful law, and bring us away from the brink of falling down the slope toward socialism and a full-fledged nanny state. We are trillions in debt, and must change course to restore America to the prosperous, self-sufficent, exceptional and free nation that our founding fathers established and many have died for.

  • Thanks for the update. Should I keep trying to get through online? Or are you saying it’s time to give up on that and call?

    • If you are not in a huge hurry, just wait and try again around Nov 15. If you are, try signing up on the phone or in person. 1-800-318-2596. You can find in-person locations at localhelp.healthcare.gov

      • Sounds good! Will try around Nov. 15. Sincere thanks for your response!

  • Is there a way for me to find out which would be more cost effective; signing up for ObamaCare or expatriating to China?

    • Expatriating to China

    • You can go to China anytime.

    • China, because at least in china they aren’t trying to get rid of their healthcare market. China is not trying to get rid of Capitalism. They are embracing it.

    • Regardless, I think America would be a little better off with you in China. If you love your country, do move out!

    • Costa rica is a better option. I am actually being serious. The cost would be less than your deductable

  • I can finally get through to the application process and now I am getting stuck on the “Are you enrolled full time in school?” and then if yes it asks “Do you have a parent or guardian living in the state you attend school?” I click yes and the green save and submit button does not work. I click it, hit enter, I have tried everything and nothing on the page indicates it is loading anything it just does nothing. I have tried to “chat” about this issue and have been told that it is due to traffic. I beg to differ, because I have successfully gotten through the whole application up until that point at least 10 times and all during different times of the day as directed by the agent. It is a glitch and has not been fixed for at least two weeks now. It would be nice to be able to move on from that question at least. End rant.

     

    Not sure what you’re paying your chat agents, but save tax payer dollars by getting rid of them. I have used chat twice. Both times I was given multiple pieces of inaccurate information and it was clear the agents didn’t have a clue what they were talking about. Eventually, after wasting 10 -15 minutes of my time, they told me to call for support. This is shameless.

     

    I don’t want to register before I shop.!!!!!!! THAT IS A PERFECTLY REASONABLE EXPECTATION¡”!!!””””””

     

    There is not any information as to what providers accept these plans, deductibles, copays, etc. How can anyone even begin to make an informed decision. This idea is of showing the plans seems as if something is trying to be kept from people that may want to sign up. So all of this information should be available now, long before we share our information. So show us today.

     

    You can contact the insurance company offering the plan to find out what providers are in their network, just like you would if you were buying it the old fashioned way, i.e. last year. Hopefully that info will be included online soon, however.

     

    What a mess! What a waste of taxpayer money! What a waste of my money! Gotta love the Affordable Health Care Act! Looks like it tripled my monthly health premium

     

    I make about $60,000.00 per year and I’m self employed. I pay the additional self-employment tax. So after a mortgage that cost me about $27,000.00 per year, auto $4,000.00 per year, taxes $18,000.00 per year, insurances, water and power, food, approximately $15,000.00 per year. And then there’s miscellaneous, repairs, home maintenance, etc. Do the math. I can’t afford another 5 or 6 grand a year. I earn too much to get assistance and not enough to afford it. What are my choices. Get poor real soon. Take on yet another job and I have no time for that or fall off the grid. I guess the choice will be made for me. Thanks! And I voted for Obama. I understand the intent but it doesn’t take into consideration human behavior. It’s just insane!

#obmamcare Putting the Brakes on Unreasonable Health Insurance Rate Increases NOT!

Who in the government is going to put the brakes on Obamacare’s
Unreasonable Insurance Rate

Learn about…
New Consumer Protections Under the Affordable
Care Act
Putting the Brakes on Unreasonable Health
Insurance Rate Increases

A new Rate Review program requires that when an insurer proposes to increase your insurance rate by 10% or more, this increase must be disclosed and justified to the public and thoroughly reviewed by State
or Federal regulators.  the Federal government will conduct the review. The review findings will be made public on www.HealthCare.gov for all reviews.

i looked but could not find the info they say is on the website i guess its just another glitch.

no need to read on it’s all gov BS from here

Read more below and at www.healthcare.gov
How does the “Rate Review”
program discourage unreasonable
rate increases?
The Rate Review program discourages
rate hikes by ensuring that proposed
increases of 10% or more get close
scrutiny from the public and State or
Federal regulators. Starting on
September 1, 2011, if your insurer
proposes a rate hike of this size, it must
give your State insurance regulator and
the Federal government:
• Advance notice of the proposed
rate;
• An explanation of why it believes
the rate hike is necessary; and
• Additional information about its
business, such as:
o The number and size of
benefit claims it has paid;
o Its history of premium
increases; and
o Its projected medical and
administrative costs.

You’ll be able to review this information
on your State insurance regulator’s
public website and on
www.HealthCare.gov, a public website
for consumers. You’ll also have an
opportunity to

Does the Rate Review program apply
to my health insurance policy?
The law applies to all health insurers
who sell policies to individuals and small
businesses, but not to large employer
group plans and “self-insured plans.”
Also, if your health insurance policy or
plan existed on March 23, 2010, it may
be considered a “grandfathered health
plan.” Grandfathered health plans are
exempt from the Rate Review
requirements.
Consumer Tip: If you’re not sure
whether the Rate Review program
applies to your health insurance plan,
you can check with your employer or
insurer. Your State may also have a
Consumer Assistance Program that can
help. Find out more at
www.HealthCare.gov/consumerhelp.
What size rate increase requires
review?
For rate increases proposed on or after
September 1, 2011, States (or, in some
cases, the Federal government) will
review average rate increases of 10% or
higher to see if they are unreasonable.
An average 10 % increase means that
some enrollees may experience rate
increases higher or lower than 10%.
Starting September 1, 2012, the 10%
threshold may change for some States,
based on State trends in health
insurance premiums and health care
costs. Many states review all proposed
increases, regardless of the size.
Who reviews the proposed rate
increase?
States conduct the reviews, if their
review process meets national
standards for effectiveness. If a State
lacks the resources or authority to do an
effective review, the Federal
government will conduct the review.
The review findings will be made public
on www.HealthCare.gov for all reviews.
You can find out whether your state is
conducting the reviews or the federal
government on HealthCare.gov.
What makes a rate increase
“unreasonable”?
A Rate Review program could find that a
premium hike is unreasonable if, for
example, the premium hike:
• Makes the health benefits a poor
value for the money;
• Is based on faulty assumptions or
incomplete information; or
• Charges different prices to
people who pose similar cost
risks to the insurer.
What happens if the rate increase is
found to be unreasonable?
The Federal government will post that
finding on HealthCare.gov.
If your insurer decides to increase rates
that are found to be unreasonable, it
must post both its explanation for the
rate increase and the findings of the
Rate Review program on its website for
three years. The Federal government

%d bloggers like this: