Month: October 2009

That Is Right…..A Fat Tax!

I have written several posts on the idea of making FAT a sin or making FAT socially unacceptable…..many in the media are jumping on the anti-fat thing, some go so far as to accuse people that are “fat” of all sorts of mortal sins….lazy…gluttony….etc….well, there is another way of doing this….another way of doing what they say cannot be done…..TAX THE BASTARDS! (sarcasm intended).

First it was Alabama…this story came from the LA Times:

The State Employees’ Insurance Board announced a new plan beginning next year in which state employees will be required to receive medication screenings for several conditions, including body mass index. Those considered obese or who have high blood pressure, high cholesterol or high glucose will have to pay $25 a month more in health insurance beginning in January 2011, if they don’t take steps to address their health problems.

The new rule will affect more than 37,000 people employed by the state. Alabama is the first state to issue a so-called fat tax. The state already charges smokers a $24 per month surcharge (which will increase to $25 next month).

Alabama has the second highest obesity rate in the country, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just over 30% of the population is obese, ranking just behind Mississippi. Still, a fat tax?

And then another Southern state has jumped on the bandwagon.  The NewsObserver.com:

“Tobacco use and poor nutrition and inactivity are the leading causes of preventable deaths in our state,” said Anne Rogers, director of integrated health management with the N.C. State Employees Health Plan. “We need a healthy workforce in this state. We’re trying to encourage individuals to adopt healthy lifestyles.”

State workers who don’t cut out the Marlboros and Big Macs will end up paying more for health care. Tobacco users get placed in a more expensive insurance plan starting in July and, for those who qualify as obese, in July 2011.

The idea of penalizing unhealthy lifestyles and rewarding healthy conduct is hardly new among insurance plans. Public health insurance plans in other states already penalize smokers or reward nonsmokers in insurance costs. South Carolina’s state employees health plan is scheduled to add a $25-per-month surcharge on smokers in January. Elsewhere in the Southeast, Kentucky and Georgia impose surcharges, and Alabama gives nonsmokers a discount.

Tobacco and obesity are leading risk factors for ailments such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and chronic breathing disorders. BioSignia is not under contract with the state health plan, but Smith said that employers like the state are trying to catch employees who are in pre-disease stages to save both lives and money.

Only a fraction of employers, though, offer financial incentives for healthy behavior or wellness programs, such as gym memberships or smoking cessation, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study last year. Differences in employees’ education, health literacy and access to basic health care could affect the usefulness of financial incentives in reducing health-care costs over time, the study said.

How lovely!  What is next….. Beer?  After all beer has a way of showing up on one’s waistline.  Granted there is already some taxation on beer and alcohol, there is always more room for expansion of that tax.

Yes, once again this is government inserting itself in people’s lives…you know the same government that seems not to want to do anything about guns and crime…..or the same government that seems reluctant to do anything about the effects of carbon emissions…that is also the cause of illness and bad for people’s health…..

If this survives any court challenge then the rest of the states will run herd over their employees.  Workers will have something else to make their pay checks smaller….and the insurance companies smile……

Another “Up” Side To Health Reform

We have all heard the argument for health reform….more insured people…healthier people….cheaper insurance….on and on….and yes we have all definitely heard the supposed downside if there is reform coming from the GOP mostly.

But with all said could there possibly be other benefits if health reform is passed?

Liz Wolgemuth writing for U.S. News And World Report:

If healthcare reform makes insurance much more affordable to individuals and businesses, it could result in a greater variety of career options for workers. For one thing, it would reduce barriers to entrepreneurship. Reform also could make it easier for workers to leave employers to whom they are “job-locked,” or committed to solely for health benefits–a situation more common to older workers and those with pre-existing conditions.

It also could ease one of the greatest obstacles to older workers’ job searches–even more pressing after nearly two years of recession and rocketing unemployment rates. “One of the long-standing barriers to hiring elderly workers is healthcare costs,” says David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Because rates are higher for smaller employers, “if that concern were taken off the table,” it would be easier for more businesses to hire older workers,

This would, in general, be a good thing for the economy. Workers who choose to stay with employers merely to receive health insurance are not ideal for employers, who benefit more from motivated and productive workers. At the same time, workers are not helped by staying in jobs so they can maintain their coverage. There is what Lahey describes as a “loss of well-being” when, say, an older worker is ailing but continues to work until he or she reaches 65 and can be covered by Medicare. Yet many workers, particularly low-income ones, feel that’s what they have to do.

Could there possibly be any disadvantage?  There is ALWAYS going to be a disadvantage to any government reform.

Small businesses pay as much as 18 percent more than large firms for the same health insurance policy, according to the president’s Council of Economic Advisers. Employees at small businesses also tend to get leaner benefits packages and pay higher deductibles. “Small firms are likely to be at a competitive disadvantage in the market for hiring workers,” according to the council’s report. While Obama’s goal may be competitive parity, opponents to existing healthcare reform legislation have argued that payroll taxes to pay for more affordable healthcare or mandates for levels of coverage could be prohibitive for small businesses.

There you have a few good versus bad of any health reform…weigh that as you struggle to make any sense of the noise coming out of Washington during the health debate.

CBO Gives Life To Reform

Well in name only that is……

The AP is reporting on the much anticipated CBO report on the costs of the Baucus Health Reform bill……..

The Congressional Budget Office added that the measure would reduce federal deficits by $81 billion over a decade and probably lead to “continued reductions in federal budget deficits” in the years beyond.

The report paves the way for the Senate Finance Committee to vote as early as Friday on the legislation, which is largely in line with President Barack Obama‘s call for the most sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system in a half-century.

A win for the insurance industry…..it will cost less than predicted…..and will give the industry millions of new customersa to screw at every turn.  Baucus said of the bill:

“This legislation, I believe, is a smart investment on our federal balance sheet. It’s an even smarter investment for American families, businesses and our economy,”

A smart investment?  For whom?  These guys are more concerned about the balance sheet and while they figure and smile more Americans die or go into bankruptcy.

The measure would require that millions of Americans purchase private insurance for the first time, and would set up a new marketplace where policies would be available.

Federal subsidies would be available to millions of lower-income individuals and families to help defray the cost of coverage that would otherwise be out of their reach. The alternative to government-sold health care, a proposal for nonprofit co-ops that would compete with private companies, was judged largely ineffective by budget officials. Such arrangements “seem unlikely to establish a significant medical presence in many areas of the country,” they wrote.

The legislation also would ban current insurance industry practices that deny coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions, and restrict companies’ ability to charge vastly higher premiums on the basis of age, gender or other factors.

But how will the health bill be budget neutral?

The reform would be paid for through a variety of tax increases and spending cuts, including savings of hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, the federal health care program for seniors.  (Watch for a future post on this piece of crap).

Swine Flu Comes A Calling

The media has been full and I mean FULL of stories about the swine flu, better known as H1N1….every “real” news media has done story after story on what to look for, what to do, when to do it and on and on….in reality it has been almost endless since the end of summer….there can be NO body who is unaware of this deadly predator.

In case you are living in the hills of Arkansas and have not heard the hype….let me help out….Symptoms of H1N1 swine flu are like regular flu symptoms and include fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, body aches, headache, chills, and fatigue. Many people with swine flu have had diarrhea and vomiting. Nearly everyone with flu has at least two of these symptoms.

But before you run into the doctor’s office and infect everyone else there is more you need to know…..the run of the mill yearly flu symptoms spell FACTS:

Fever

Aches

Chills

Tiredness

Sudden Symptoms

Now you will ask what is the difference between the two….and a good question….who knows…they are saying it is not the Spanish Flu or the Hong Kong Flu or pick one from the past…..the flu is the flu….pig like or otherwise.

Now we are told that a shot will be needed to help fight off infection….and we can go to our local drug store chain and get an injection for $24.99….a deal at any price…..

The vaccines will trickle in at a rate of about 20 million doses a week, and officials are unsure how many Americans will actually get them. The U.S. government is providing them for free, but clinics and retailers may charge to administer them.

*******STOP! and re-read the paragraph above**********(Pause here for effect)

They get free drugs paid for by the government (your money) and the drug stores can charge for the convenience of having the shots on site.

After hear that and checking up on the media and its attempt to “inform” the public……and as I have said…every network is pushing hard for the people to be informed and to help them get the information that they require…..is it really a public service?  Or is it helping to create a demand for the injections at $24.99?

At least two surveys have suggested that demand may be somewhat higher for the swine flu vaccine than for the seasonal influenza vaccine.

A survey by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions and Harris Interactive found that 53 percent of Americans say they plan to get vaccinated, compared with 41 percent who say they will not be vaccinated.

Not a bad deal at $24.99 a pop……

After the summer’s hysteria over the swine flu and the warnings of a pandemic…I question the motives of the media and their concern for the public….is it real or is it all a game to help the companies bring in more paying customers?

Medicare: Love It Or Cut It!

We have from decades heard those who want to gut Medicare for a variety of reasons, like costs or fraud or whatever the reason—-and for decades that possibility hgas been avoided and in some cases outright defeated.  Of course as part of the raging drama in Washington that is called the health debate Medicare will once again become a target for attack…and this time Dems may be the biggest attackers.

A couple of days ago the AP ran a story on this very subject:

THE POLITICS: Democrats are proposing to reduce the ballooning costs of Medicare to keep the program solvent. They want to root out waste to find the savings, and to reduce payments to some providers. Republicans have argued that the Democrats’ plan would slash Medicare benefits. Seniors on Medicare have been some of the most vocal opponents of the Democrats’ health care overhaul proposals. President Barack Obama says America’s elderly citizens won’t lose coverage. The AARP, which represents Americans 50 and over, backs Obama and says the reforms will lower drug costs for some seniors, protect access to doctors and strengthen Medicare.

WHAT IT MEANS: The House health care proposal would reduce projected increases in Medicare payments to some health care providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. Some of that money would be put toward avoiding cuts in payments to doctors so seniors have better access to physicians. Democrats plan to reduce payments to private providers in programs such as Medicare Advantage, which is operated by private insurance companies and bought by seniors to fill gaps in coverage. Democrats propose to also reduce Medicare’s costs by targeting fraud and waste, such as overpayments to some home health providers. Some of the savings from Medicare would be used to cover uninsured workers who pay Medicare taxes.

Just the other day on MSNBC’s “Morning Meeting” Medicare was a hot topic:

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and health care provocateur Betsy McCaughey took their health care debate to MSNBC’s “Morning Meeting” hosted by Dylan Ratigan. In a heated exchange that lasted almost 15 minutes, the two sparred over Medicare cuts, the public option, and health care spending.

After repeatedly refusing to explain how she would reduce health care spending, McCaughey finally proposed “inching up the eligibility age [for Medicare] one month a year until 2043 when the eligibility age reaches 70.” That could “put Medicare on a firm footing without cutting care for Medicare recipients.”

“That was a solid answer to your question,” Weiner exclaimed facetiously. “Take away 100% of Medicare for people 65 to 70.” According to the Congressional Budget Office, which McCaughey credited with the idea, eliminating “younger beneficiaries” from the Medicare program would do little to control costs. “Outlays for Medicare would [still] rise to 7.7 percent of GDP by 2050,” the CBO concluded.

Weiner pounced on McCaughey’s solution, which could cut as many as 11.3 million seniors from Medicare. “You want to gut Medicare,” Weiner told McCaughey. “You just said on this show you wanted to cut Medicare for everyone 65 to 70, isn’t that right?”

(I would like to thank thinkprogress.org for the transcript….I watched the exchange on the tube but could not write fast enough to keep up….Dylan Ratigan should be commended for trying to get a straight answer on his questions.)

The whole debate was fascinating and as usual the righty could not come up with a plan to cut cost beyond screwing the seniors.

May I suggest that ALL seniors need to keep a close eye on the comings and goings of the people on the Right, eventually they will sell this whole Medicare cut thing to someone who will sign the crap into law.

Af-Pak Report

Lots of bitching in the news…will we or won’t we send more troops to Afghanistan?  Yesterday Obama said that “staying in Afghanistan is the only option.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that walking away isn’t a viable option to deal with a war that is about to enter its ninth year.

“I don’t think we have the option to leave. That’s quite clear,” Gibbs said.

Okay we have now heard all the hype….but there is a couple of stories that get very little play in a media that does not want the whole story of Afghanistan to be reported.

In an article written by Joseph Ditz:

Former US Ambassador Peter Galbraith, who was fired from his role as second ranking official at the UN Mission to Afghanistan last week, says he was ordered by mission chief Kai Eide to cover up the extent of the voter fraud by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Among the data was evidence that almost one in three votes for Karzai was actually fraudulent. Though ample evidence of widespread fraud has since come to light, the UN mission, which was charged by the Security Council to ensure the fairness of the elections, has been reluctant to press for more than cursory recounts and some from the mission have indicated a preference to not have a run-off between Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, a virtual certainty if the fraudulent votes were discounted.

Undaunted by the growing evidence against him, and likely bolstered by reports that the Obama Administration has decided he will remain in power regardless of what the investigations determine, Karzai attacked the continuation of the investigations, saying that the delay in declaring him winner harmed the nation.

And he went on to say about Pakistan:

According to top generals, of the $6.6 billion in American military aid to the nation between 2002 and 2008, only about $500 million of it actually ended up in the hands of the military.Exactly where the rest of that money went is unclear, but officials say much of it went to then-President Pervez Musharraf’s various subsidy programs to try to bolster his sagging domestic image.

Even for the money that did get to Pakistan’s military, much of it was spent on equipment to fight India as opposed to fighting the assorted insurgencies the US was hoping to target. As one Pentagon spokesman put it “we don’t have a mechanism for tracking the money after we have given it to them.”

The lack of accountability is bound to raise concerns, particularly with the Senate having approved a bill to triple non-military aid to Pakistan late last month. The same bill also authorized military aid to whatever level necessary to defeat al-Qaeda: which could potentially be an enormous black hole from which US aid pours, never to be seen again.

Just a couple of stories that were not played here in the US, if it was it wasn’t played to a wide audience.  Americans need to know there is more to the Af-Pak situation than is being reported.

There is more going on than the debate in Washington over what to do…there is more that needs attention than just the begging of generals….there is more abuse of the taxpayers and their money than some petty name calling with political parties……if a decision is truly going to be made weighing all the facts then maybe we should hear more of the cover-ups than we get now.

How About A New Reality Show?

We have Kate +8, we have Survivor, we have Dancing with the morons, we have ……….you pick it we have it.  And the thing is that they have millions upon millions watching the crap……since Americans have the attention span of a horny titmouse, why not another?

Have I peeked your interest?  Good……why not, since Americans cannot live without the drama of the Reality TV, put a political one on air?  One day it will be the major issues in the House and then the Senate.  We would eliminate all the BS lawyer speak and put it in simple terms that even a hillbilly in Mississippi can understand then at the end of the episode two phone numbers would be displayed, one for pass and one for reject, whatever the issue is.

This would give all the drama queens in Congress a chance to perform for the camera and we, the people, would vote on the issue.  All the yo-yos in Congress are playing to the media anyway and this would just give them a better venue.

Not only would it be entertaining but the people, the viewers, would actually learn something about the major issues and not depend on idiots like Beck, Limbaugh, etc.  We could finally have a semi-informed public, something the Founding Fathers said was necessary for the democracy to work.

Since we cannot seem to educate the people while they attend school, I was hoping to find another way of helping them learn…..I know yet another pipe dream…..oh well……

Could It Get Any Worse?

Markets are a yo-yo……foreclosures are rising quicker than the dead in a zombie movie….jobs are flying out of the economy….and manufacturing is at a stand still….so….could things get worse?

The quick answer is ….you bet your ass it can!

Remember all the urgency of the TARP, TALF and ARRA?  If we did not do something we would be in a sad place in the economy…….would the government, the Treasury to be exact, ever lie to the people to get their way or their money, as it were?

Want another quick answer?  Oh, you betcha ass they would!

Now I know someone somewhere, most likely in “Stumpville, Arkansas will dispute that….but I hate to be a buzz kill, but the WSJ is reporting …they did just that….

The US Treasury misled the public over the health of struggling Wall Street banks receiving emergency funds at the height of the financial crisis, creating unrealistic expectations and undermining popular trust in bailout efforts, according to an official audit.

An inspector general appointed to oversee the US government’s banking bailout has singled out president Bush’s treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, for painting an excessively rosy picture of the condition of institutions such as Bank of America, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch when the government pumped $125bn (£70bn) into America’s ten top banks in September last year.

At the time, Paulson described the banks as “healthy institutions” and said that an injection of government cash would kick-start lending in the economy. But officials in both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve had private concerns that some of them were teetering close to a financial collapse.

“The Treasury may have created unrealistic expectations about the institutions’ condition and their ability to increase lending,” says a report today by the inspector general, Neil Barofsky, who adds that the Treasury and the bail-out program “lost credibility when lending at those institutions did not in fact increase”.

He continues: “Accuracy and transparency will enhance the credibility of government programs like TARP [the troubled asset repurchase plan] and restore taxpayer confidence in the policy makers who manage them; inaccurate statements, on the other hand, could have unintended long-term consequences that could damage the trust that the American people have in their government.”

The Federal Reserve’s chairman, Ben Bernanke, and the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair, are criticised for similarly optimistic remarks in the findings, which will add to a vigorous debate about the handling of the credit crunch in the final months of Bush administration.

Paulson and Bernanke opted to pump funds into all ten of the country’s top banks to avoid creating “haves” and “have nots” that would highlight those considered to be in a more perilous state. In doing so, they tried to talk up the condition of every big institution.

Even though a couple of the big banks have repaid, at least some, of the money….they are still NOT stable and the lies of the past could very well come back to bite them in the ass.

I really hate to pee on the parade….but all the “good” news, economic good news, is made up…nothing is making Main Street feel optimistic about the chances of the economy recovering.

The final word is that the banks have done NOTHING to change the way they do business….so the conditions that caused the crash, as it were, are still in place and surviving well.

YES…things could still get worse……….

Is Fat A Sin?

Exercise….Eat Well……Die Anyway……….

Yesterday I had a rage against people that insert themselves into others lives and this post is kinda on the same lines…….

We have all heard the crap flowing from the mouths of “TV” doctors like OZ and whats his name on CNN and from the media hosts that are sooooooo concerned with the eating habits of our citizens….to the point that they are trying to infer that being fat should somehow be a crime or a sin.

They, the pundits, are saying that they see children that are fat at their kid’s schools and at the malls and so on…….and they are disgusted, at least that is the way they portray their attitudes.  But what is the answer?

The Independent Institute has a commentary by William F. Shugart II and I quote excerpts from this writing:

Recognizing that further hikes on existing federal excise taxes for Congress’ two old standbys—alcohol and tobacco—will not raise enough revenue, Washington is considering selectively taxing “sugary” soft drinks that supposedly contribute to the modern sin of obesity. Fat cats apparently are not the only Americans who may see their tax bills go up.

Suggesting that “soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply,” as the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest recently did, recasts the proposed excise tax as one with a positive effect: nudging consumer behavior toward a healthier lifestyle. According to one estimate, a tax of one cent per fluid ounce on carbonated soft drinks would raise $17 billion per year and reduce consumption by 13 percent. This appears to allow the federal government to do well by doing good.

Yet the reality is that soft drink sales have already been declining for the last nine years without a federal excise tax. While correlation is not causation, it is clearly a stretch to argue that sodas have contributed significantly to a nationwide obesity “epidemic.” In fact, the obesity rates in the two states that do tax soft drinks are among the nation’s highest.

Selective excise taxes violate a widely accepted principle of public finance known among economists as “horizontal equity.” This principle suggests that individuals in similar economic circumstances ought to bear similar tax burdens. In other words, one person’s tax bill should not be higher simply because of what he or she chooses to consume.

Excise taxes also are very blunt instruments for controlling consumption behavior; they punish responsible consumers as well as those who overindulge. Worse, a soft drink tax, like all consumption taxes, would be regressive, falling more heavily on the poor than on the wealthy.

Singling out consumers of some products to finance a healthcare plan the president says will benefit all Americans is fiscal discrimination at its most brazen. And the farther the nation moves toward a single-payer health insurance program, the more pressure there will be to tax any product that anyone, anywhere, plausibly can argue is detrimental to one’s health.

Today it may be carbonated soft drinks. Tomorrow, it may be ethnic food, coffee, bacon and eggs, hot dogs and red meat.

So all you idiots that want to dictate to people what they should or should not eat or drink…..I say….BITE ME!

It is very simple your moronic dingbats….make healthy food cheaper and everyone will join the game…if we must make a certain type of food a “sin” then make the alternative cheaper and do not raise taxes.

Personally, I do not care what they do to sodas…I do not drink them…..but taxing them is NOT the answer….I feel that jogging is unhealthy…why not put a $10 exercise fee on all shoes and attire…do you think the “healthy” dipsticks will go for that?  I doubt it……

Side note:  the government program WIC will start issuing vouchers for fruit and veggies only and will make getting sugary items and high fat milk harder.

Wait!  High fat milk?  Do you mean that milk is NOT good for every body?  So, they want recipients  to drink white water or watered down Elmer’s glue…how yummy is that?

Is The GOP Growing Cajones?

Yes, Irene…there has been some silliness on all sides during the first 9 months of the Obama admin,,,,the GOP seems to be ate up with morons…morons that cannot get a grasp on their way…..and then there are those entertaining little turds on conservative talk radio….you know them by names l;ike Beck, Limbaugh and then those that are masquerading as journalists on the tube…..but where with in the GOP is there any cajones to call these liars out and expose them for what they are…..?

Finally….some in the GOP are stepping up and calling for the crap to stop …..

First it was Lindsey Graham would called  Glenn Beck what he is…an entertainer and that he does NOT speak for the GOP….

Lightning-rod talker Glenn Beck is taking a hit from an unexpected source.

The Fox News host isn’t aligned with any political party, Sen. Lindsey Graham said Thursday, Beck is “aligned with cynicism.” And, the South Carolina Republican added, America isn’t a nation of cynics.
Graham, who spoke at The First Draft of History conference sponsored by The Atlantic, also took at shot at “birthers.” He said those who question President Obama’s citizenship or claim he’s a secret Muslim are “crazy” — and he urged them to “knock this crap off.”
And then there is the craziness of Palin who seems determined to keep spouting that which has been proven to be inaccurate….Death Panels….and now someone is hitting at her….

The Atlantic’s First Draft of History conference, Steve Schmidt, who served as the top political strategist for both John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger, spoke candidly about the state of the Republican Party. On health care, Schmidt noted that some individual Republicans, like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), were “advancing ideas” on health care legislation, but that “the party holistically is bereft of ideas.” Asked about Sarah Palin’s future political prospects, Schmidt argued that she could conceivably win the GOP nomination because of her popularity with the base conservative electorate. However, if that were to happen, Schmidt said that such a turn of events would be “catastrophic” because Palin has alienated mainstream America:

SCHMIDT: I think that she has talents. But my honest view is that she would not be a winning candidate for the Republican Party in 2012, and in fact, were she the nominee, we could have a catastrophic election result.

It is finally good to see that there are still some of the people in the GOP that is not impressed with the bullsh!t and the lies that some within the party are spreading like so much manure.