Thank you from a grateful American.
To those who gave their all.
The important stuff…
16 hours ago
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Thank You
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Socialized Medicine
So the House has passed their beloved healthcare bill. More socialized medicine. $1.2 trillion. Now it goes to the Senate. If it passes and we become subject to government run health care anyone with half a brain knows what lies down the road: increased taxes, decreased Medicare, rationed healthcare doled out by someone who doesn’t know medicine from Marxism. Gone will be any modicum of quality of care because any doctor worth his salt will find another way to use his God-given talents. The cheering by those who believe this is the answer to the nation’s health woes will soon turn to questions, blank stares, and then anger when they realize they’ve been had once again. Of course, by then it will be too late and another one of our choices will have bitten the dust, mashed by another giant socialist footprint.
Think about this: a rough estimate of the number of protestors who marched on Washington DC on September 12th is 850,000. My husband was there; he should know. The number of people who participated in the tea parties all across our nation from the first whiff of Obamunism blowing in the wind is nearly impossible to estimate. The MSM was not interested in even acknowledging that they were taking place, and that they continue to take place, and will continue to take place until members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle realize just who employs them. The House passed socialized medicine despite an uprising of thousands of thinking citizens who saw the writing on the wall and despite a summer of town hall protests and despite the absence of any coherency in the so-called bill.
And who is bringing us the bill? A bill that will enhance the stranglehold on the American economy and American ideals and American freedom in every sector? Why, none other than the Marxist president and 536 members of a congress who already shoved that $787 billion stimulus bill down our throats in February. You remember the bill: the one that stimulated unemployment? Oops. Oh, yeah, it also stimulated John Murtha’s airport.
The same president and congress who took over the automobile and banking industries and are on the verge of doing a sleight of hand with the carbon tax. But we know all that, don’t we? We know how much they care for us and our wellbeing? Now let’s look at these people, who are employed by us, who sit in their hallowed halls, which are owned by us, pull in salaries paid by us, salaries which most of us could only dream of seeing in our entire lifetimes, with perks which are stolen from us. Let’s look at their health care benefits. With a wide range of choices and very reasonable premiums considering their salaries, they are set for life from the second they come on board until their dying gasp.
"Health Care for Members of Congress?
August 25, 2009
Q: What type of health insurance do members of Congress receive? Is it a single-payer, government-run system?
A: Members of Congress are covered by private insurance under the same system that covers all federal workers.
FULL ANSWER
Members of Congress have good health insurance by any standard, but it’s not free and not reserved only for them – and it’s not government insurance. House and Senate members are allowed to purchase private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million other federal employees, retirees and their families.
It’s not a "single-payer" system where the government acts as the one and only health insurance company. As President Bush’s chief of personnel Kay Coles James said in 2003, while lecturing at the conservative Heritage Foundation, "the FEHB program is not centralized, government-run health care." It has drawn praise both from conservatives and liberals, including President Obama, who held it up as a model for his own health care proposals.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the FEHBP offers about 300 different private health care plans, including five government-wide, fee-for-service plans and many regional health maintenance organization (HMO) plans, plus high-deductible, tax-advantaged plans. All plans cover hospital, surgical and physician services, and mental health services, prescription drugs and "catastrophic" coverage against very large medical expenses. There are no waiting periods for coverage when new employees are hired, and there are no exclusions for preexisting conditions. The FEHBP negotiates contracts annually with all insurance companies who wish to participate. There is plenty of competition for the business; FEHBP is the largest employer-sponsored health plan in the U.S.
Those who don’t like their coverage may switch to another plan during a yearly "open season" period. To help with the choices, FEHBP conducts an annual "satisfaction survey" of each plan with more than 500 members and publishes the results.
Like other large employers, the government pays a large share of the cost of coverage. On average, the government pays 72 percent of the premiums for its workers, up to a maximum of 75 percent depending on the policy chosen. For example, the popular Blue Cross and Blue Shield standard fee-for-service family plan carries a total premium of $1,120.47 per month, of which the beneficiary pays $356.59. Washington, D.C.-based employees who prefer an HMO option might choose the Kaiser standard family plan. It carries a total premium of $629.46 per month, of which the employee pays only $157.36.
In addition, members of Congress also qualify for some medical benefits that ordinary federal workers do not. They (but not their families) are eligible to receive limited medical services from the Office of the Attending Physician of the U.S. Capitol, after payment of an annual fee ($491in 2007). But services don’t include surgery, dental care or eyeglasses, and any prescriptions must be filled at the member’s expense.
House and Senate members (but not their families) also are eligible to receive care at military hospitals. For outpatient care, there is no charge at the Washington, D.C., area hospitals (Walter Reed Army Medical Center and National Naval Medical Center). Inpatient care is billed at rates set by the Department of Defense.
-Brooks Jackson
Sources:
English, Barbara. "Health Benefits for Members of Congress." Congressional Research Service. 25 Sep 2007.
"Non-Postal Premium Rates for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; Fee-for-Service Plans (FFS)." Office of Personnel Management. rates for 2009. undated, accessed 24 Aug 2009.
"Non-Postal Premium Rates for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; Health Management Organizations (HMO)." Office of Personnel Management. rates for 2009. undated, accessed 24 Aug 2009.
Posted by Brooks Jackson on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 at 11:11 am
Filed under Ask FactCheck • Tagged with Congress, health insurance"
Why are these people so concerned about healthcare for the masses? Is it that they are really agonizing about all the pitiful uninsured, which are piling up in untreated heaps outside the emergency room doors? Do they really give a rip about the great unwashed who drag their infants and their grannies into clinics and get turned away in droves because they don’t have coverage? THEY COULDN’T CARE LESS! It’s about control. Only and always control. And we are circling the drain of the great and powerful toilet of totalitarianism. Wake up, folks. It’s almost too late. We need 2010 and we need it badly. And soon.
Love
Granny
Think about this: a rough estimate of the number of protestors who marched on Washington DC on September 12th is 850,000. My husband was there; he should know. The number of people who participated in the tea parties all across our nation from the first whiff of Obamunism blowing in the wind is nearly impossible to estimate. The MSM was not interested in even acknowledging that they were taking place, and that they continue to take place, and will continue to take place until members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle realize just who employs them. The House passed socialized medicine despite an uprising of thousands of thinking citizens who saw the writing on the wall and despite a summer of town hall protests and despite the absence of any coherency in the so-called bill.
And who is bringing us the bill? A bill that will enhance the stranglehold on the American economy and American ideals and American freedom in every sector? Why, none other than the Marxist president and 536 members of a congress who already shoved that $787 billion stimulus bill down our throats in February. You remember the bill: the one that stimulated unemployment? Oops. Oh, yeah, it also stimulated John Murtha’s airport.
The same president and congress who took over the automobile and banking industries and are on the verge of doing a sleight of hand with the carbon tax. But we know all that, don’t we? We know how much they care for us and our wellbeing? Now let’s look at these people, who are employed by us, who sit in their hallowed halls, which are owned by us, pull in salaries paid by us, salaries which most of us could only dream of seeing in our entire lifetimes, with perks which are stolen from us. Let’s look at their health care benefits. With a wide range of choices and very reasonable premiums considering their salaries, they are set for life from the second they come on board until their dying gasp.
"Health Care for Members of Congress?
August 25, 2009
Q: What type of health insurance do members of Congress receive? Is it a single-payer, government-run system?
A: Members of Congress are covered by private insurance under the same system that covers all federal workers.
FULL ANSWER
Members of Congress have good health insurance by any standard, but it’s not free and not reserved only for them – and it’s not government insurance. House and Senate members are allowed to purchase private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million other federal employees, retirees and their families.
It’s not a "single-payer" system where the government acts as the one and only health insurance company. As President Bush’s chief of personnel Kay Coles James said in 2003, while lecturing at the conservative Heritage Foundation, "the FEHB program is not centralized, government-run health care." It has drawn praise both from conservatives and liberals, including President Obama, who held it up as a model for his own health care proposals.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the FEHBP offers about 300 different private health care plans, including five government-wide, fee-for-service plans and many regional health maintenance organization (HMO) plans, plus high-deductible, tax-advantaged plans. All plans cover hospital, surgical and physician services, and mental health services, prescription drugs and "catastrophic" coverage against very large medical expenses. There are no waiting periods for coverage when new employees are hired, and there are no exclusions for preexisting conditions. The FEHBP negotiates contracts annually with all insurance companies who wish to participate. There is plenty of competition for the business; FEHBP is the largest employer-sponsored health plan in the U.S.
Those who don’t like their coverage may switch to another plan during a yearly "open season" period. To help with the choices, FEHBP conducts an annual "satisfaction survey" of each plan with more than 500 members and publishes the results.
Like other large employers, the government pays a large share of the cost of coverage. On average, the government pays 72 percent of the premiums for its workers, up to a maximum of 75 percent depending on the policy chosen. For example, the popular Blue Cross and Blue Shield standard fee-for-service family plan carries a total premium of $1,120.47 per month, of which the beneficiary pays $356.59. Washington, D.C.-based employees who prefer an HMO option might choose the Kaiser standard family plan. It carries a total premium of $629.46 per month, of which the employee pays only $157.36.
In addition, members of Congress also qualify for some medical benefits that ordinary federal workers do not. They (but not their families) are eligible to receive limited medical services from the Office of the Attending Physician of the U.S. Capitol, after payment of an annual fee ($491in 2007). But services don’t include surgery, dental care or eyeglasses, and any prescriptions must be filled at the member’s expense.
House and Senate members (but not their families) also are eligible to receive care at military hospitals. For outpatient care, there is no charge at the Washington, D.C., area hospitals (Walter Reed Army Medical Center and National Naval Medical Center). Inpatient care is billed at rates set by the Department of Defense.
-Brooks Jackson
Sources:
English, Barbara. "Health Benefits for Members of Congress." Congressional Research Service. 25 Sep 2007.
"Non-Postal Premium Rates for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; Fee-for-Service Plans (FFS)." Office of Personnel Management. rates for 2009. undated, accessed 24 Aug 2009.
"Non-Postal Premium Rates for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; Health Management Organizations (HMO)." Office of Personnel Management. rates for 2009. undated, accessed 24 Aug 2009.
Posted by Brooks Jackson on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 at 11:11 am
Filed under Ask FactCheck • Tagged with Congress, health insurance"
Why are these people so concerned about healthcare for the masses? Is it that they are really agonizing about all the pitiful uninsured, which are piling up in untreated heaps outside the emergency room doors? Do they really give a rip about the great unwashed who drag their infants and their grannies into clinics and get turned away in droves because they don’t have coverage? THEY COULDN’T CARE LESS! It’s about control. Only and always control. And we are circling the drain of the great and powerful toilet of totalitarianism. Wake up, folks. It’s almost too late. We need 2010 and we need it badly. And soon.
Love
Granny
Friday, November 6, 2009
Nancy's Busy Tonight
Love
Granny
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Fort Hood—The Diversion
The timing is too perfect. “Never let a crisis go to waste.” For the next several days Fort Hood will occupy every TV screen, every talk radio show, every Internet news source, and every cell phone conversation. Americans are easily distracted.
Before you accuse me of just having acquired a brand new tinfoil hat think about this: What is this administration’s favorite strategy for slipping a BIG DEAL through right under our noses? Distraction.
So, while you’re glued to your TVs and computers this weekend, watching the drama unfold at Fort Hood, who does not deserve this, please keep the bigger picture in mind. Coincidence? Who knows? But I don’t trust the denizens of the darkness in Washington any more than I trust a rabid dog not to bite.
Planned? Who knows? But I wouldn’t put it past any of them. A small price to pay for successfully ramming a vile, obscene healthcare bill down our throats.
Love
Granny
Before you accuse me of just having acquired a brand new tinfoil hat think about this: What is this administration’s favorite strategy for slipping a BIG DEAL through right under our noses? Distraction.
So, while you’re glued to your TVs and computers this weekend, watching the drama unfold at Fort Hood, who does not deserve this, please keep the bigger picture in mind. Coincidence? Who knows? But I don’t trust the denizens of the darkness in Washington any more than I trust a rabid dog not to bite.
Planned? Who knows? But I wouldn’t put it past any of them. A small price to pay for successfully ramming a vile, obscene healthcare bill down our throats.
Love
Granny
Constitution? What Constitution?
When you've got a blithering idiot for a press secretary you don't have to worry too much about what a drooling fool you look like when you're caught with your teleprompter down:
Gibbs Says He Doesn’t Know if White House Has Reviewed Constitutionality of Forcing People to Buy Health Insurance
Monday, November 02, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said today that he does not know if White House lawyers have reviewed whether it is constitutional for the federal government to order individuals to buy health insurance and said that the White House is not seriously considering the concerns of people such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) who believe the mandate is not constitutionally justified.
This was the second time in two weeks that Gibbs had dismissed concerns that the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to force individuals to purchase items the government wants them to purchase.
Hatch told CNSNews.com last week that forcing people to buy health insurance cannot be justified under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
“But here would be the first time where our government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want,” Hatch told CNSNews.com. “And, you know, if that’s the case, then we didn’t need a ‘Cash for Clunkers,’ all we had to do is have the federal government say you all got to buy new cars, no matter how tough it is on you. You know, they could require you to buy anything. And that isn’t America. That’s not freedom. That’s not constitutionally sound. Now, there may be some gimmicky way that they can do this, but I can’t think of a gimmicky way that would be constitutionally justified.”
Gibbs was asked by a reporter on Monday: “Have White House lawyers looked at this issue? Has this been examined in any way?”
Gibbs responded: “Not that I know of. I don’t think it has gotten to the point where anybody questions the legitimacy of it.”
The reporter followed up: “Well, Orrin Hatch questions the legitimacy of it.” Gibbs quipped, “Well, you should ask him.”
The reporter asked, “Do you not feel there is any concern at all about whether it is constitutional for Congress to impose a mandate?”
“No,” Gibbs said.
Both House and Senate versions of the health care bill would mandate that individuals purchase health insurance.
While the executive branch is apparently not reviewing the constitutionality of the proposal, a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report issued on July 24 looked at it and did not arrive at a definitive answer.
“Despite the breadth of powers that have been exercised under the Commerce Clause, it is unclear whether the clause would provide a solid constitutional foundation for legislation containing a requirement to have health insurance,” the CRS report said. “Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service.”
The CRS report also addressed one of the most frequently used arguments in favor of allowing a mandate.
“Although the federal government provides health coverage for many individuals through federal programs such as Medicare, it has never required individuals to purchase health insurance. While a requirement to transfer money to a private party may arise in other contexts (e.g., automobile insurance), it has been noted that these provisions are based on exercising a privilege, like driving a car,” the report says.
Mandates that drivers buy auto insurance are enacted on the state, not the federal level and are therefore not based on any interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which is a part of the federal Constitution and applies to federal laws.
Former Justice Department Attorney David Rivkin was among the first to raise the issue of whether requiring people to buy a product is constitutional. He predicts if the health care bill is enacted, the question of the mandate will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which he predicts would probably take up to four years.
“This is a mandate that would apply to millions of Americans,” Rivkin, who served in both the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, told CNSNews.com. “A good number of them are going to run to district courts and start a lawsuit. It would eventually go to the Supreme Court. It would take several years. There will be lots and lots and lots of cases. And people will have standing. We’re not talking about taxpayer standing. We’re talking about a mandate that applies to them personally. It will take several years to get to the Supreme Court, probably at least four.”
Rivkin believes if this is upheld, it would set a precedent to mandate the purchase of other products.
“Not one person has emerged to tell me what would be the limiting principal for the purchase of health care. You can mandate the purchase of health club memberships,” Rivkin said. “You can mandate the coverage of mental wellness. You could mandate the purchase of new cars every couple of years. That sure would stimulate the automotive sector.”
The non-partisan CRS analysis points to several U.S. Supreme Court precedents.
The high court in United States vs. Lopez rules that prohibiting the possession of a firearm near a school zone is not justifiable under the Commerce Clause. Also, in the case of United States vs. Morrison, the high court determined that Congress did not have the authority to pass the Violence Against Women Act ruling that “gender-motivated crimes are not, in any sense of the phrase, economic activity,” and that expanding such regulation of a non-economic activity would enable federal regulation of almost any activity, including “family law and other areas of traditional state regulation.”
Love
Granny
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
