I think most people would agree thatHustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flynt is one of the greatest slimeballs of all time. Having said that, even slimeballs can have a flash of insight now and again. The following Flynt OpEd from the Huffington Post is really pretty stunning in its clarity. Take a few minutes out of your busy schedules and give his comments an eyeballing:
Common Sense 2009
" The American government -- which we once called our government -- has been taken over by Wall Street, the mega-corporations and the super-rich. They are the ones who decide our fate. It is this group of powerful elites, the people President Franklin D. Roosevelt called "economic royalists," who choose our elected officials -- indeed, our very form of government. Both Democrats and Republicans dance to the tune of their corporate masters. In America, corporations do not control the government. In America, corporations are the government.
This was never more obvious than with the Wall Street bailout, whereby the very corporations that caused the collapse of our economy were rewarded with taxpayer dollars. So arrogant, so smug were they that, without a moment's hesitation, they took our money -- yours and mine -- to pay their executives multimillion-dollar bonuses, something they continue doing to this very day. They have no shame. They don't care what you and I think about them. Henry Kissinger refers to us as "useless eaters."
But, you say, we have elected a candidate of change. To which I respond: Do these words of President Obama sound like change?
"A culture of irresponsibility took root, from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street." There it is. Right there. We are Main Street. We must, according to our president, share the blame. He went on to say: "And a regulatory regime basically crafted in the wake of a 20th-century economic crisis -- the Great Depression -- was overwhelmed by the speed, scope and sophistication of a 21st-century global economy."
This is nonsense.
The reason Wall Street was able to game the system the way it did -- knowing that they would become rich at the expense of the American people (oh, yes, they most certainly knew that) -- was because the financial elite had bribed our legislators to roll back the protections enacted after the Stock Market Crash of 1929.
Congress gutted the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial lending banks from investment banks, and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed for self-regulation with no oversight. The Securities and Exchange Commission subsequently revised its rules to allow for even less oversight -- and we've all seen how well that worked out. To date, no serious legislation has been offered by the Obama administration to correct these problems.
Instead, Obama wants to increase the oversight power of the Federal Reserve. Never mind that it already had significant oversight power before our most recent economic meltdown, yet failed to take action. Never mind that the Fed is not a government agency but a cartel of private bankers that cannot be held accountable by Washington. Whatever the Fed does with these supposed new oversight powers will be behind closed doors.
Obama's failure to act sends one message loud and clear: He cannot stand up to the powerful Wall Street interests that supplied the bulk of his campaign money for the 2008 election. Nor, for that matter, can Congress, for much the same reason.
Consider what multibillionaire banker David Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 memoirs:
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Read Rockefeller's words again. He actually admits to working against the "best interests of the United States."
Need more? Here's what Rockefeller said in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order." They're gaming us. Our country has been stolen from us.
Journalist Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, notes that esteemed economist John Kenneth Galbraith laid the 1929 crash at the feet of banking giant Goldman Sachs. Taibbi goes on to say that Goldman Sachs has been behind every other economic downturn as well, including the most recent one. As if that wasn't enough, Goldman Sachs even had a hand in pushing gas prices up to $4 a gallon.
The problem with bankers is longstanding. Here's what one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had to say about them:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their father's conquered."
We all know that the first American Revolution officially began in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence. Less well known is that the single strongest motivating factor for revolution was the colonists' attempt to free themselves from the Bank of England. But how many of you know about the second revolution, referred to by historians as Shays' Rebellion? It took place in 1786-87, and once again the banks were the cause. This time they were putting the screws to America's farmers.
Daniel Shays was a farmer in western Massachusetts. Like many other farmers of the day, he was being driven into bankruptcy by the banks' predatory lending practices. (Sound familiar?) Rallying other farmers to his side, Shays led his rebels in an attack on the courts and the local armory. The rebellion itself failed, but a message had been sent: The bankers (and the politicians who supported them) ultimately backed off. As Thomas Jefferson famously quipped in regard to the insurrection: "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Perhaps it's time to consider that option once again.
I'm calling for a national strike, one designed to close the country down for a day. The intent? Real campaign-finance reform and strong restrictions on lobbying. Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics. Nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful.
Let's set a date. No one goes to work. No one buys anything. And if that isn't effective -- if the politicians ignore us -- we do it again. And again. And again.
The real war is not between the left and the right. It is between the average American and the ruling class. If we come together on this single issue, everything else will resolve itself. It's time we took back our government from those who would make us their slaves.
====================
Pretty surprising...no? On this one Larry you get a thumbs up.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Big Brother is Here: DHS Secure Flight Final Rule
In a post a while back I mentioned that although the United States has its share of problems, at least we do not have to show an internal passport to travel between the contiguous states.
Well, we still do not have to do that, but as of August 15, 2009 you now need the government's permission to travel by air.
From the Homeland Security website:
Release Date: October 22, 2008
For Immediate ReleaseOffice of the Press SecretaryContact: 202-282-8010
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today announced the issuance of the Secure Flight Final Rule, which shifts pre-departure watch list matching responsibilities from individual aircraft operators to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and carries out a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. By bringing watch list matching responsibilities in-house, TSA can better remedy possible misidentifications when a traveler's name is similar to one found on a watch list.
"Secure Flight is a critical tool that will further improve aviation security and fix the major customer service issue of watch list misidentifications, a frustratingly common occurrence for travelers under the existing airline-based system," said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. "We know that threats to our aviation system persist, and Secure Flight will help us better protect the traveling public while creating a more consistent passenger prescreening process, ultimately reducing the number of misidentification issues."
Airlines will be required under Secure Flight to collect a passenger's full name, date of birth, and gender when making an airline reservation. This additional information is expected to prevent most inconveniences at the airport, and will be particularly important for those individuals with names similar to those on the watch list.
"Secure Flight will improve security by maintaining the confidentiality of the government's watch list information while fully protecting passengers' privacy and civil liberties," said TSA Administrator Kip Hawley. "Ensuring privacy has been a cornerstone of this program and TSA has developed a comprehensive privacy plan to incorporate privacy laws and practices into all areas of Secure Flight."
TSA will receive limited information for each passenger, as well as for certain non-traveling individuals, such as those escorting a minor or disabled passenger to the gate. TSA will determine if their information matches the No Fly or Selectee lists and will transmit results back to airlines. Data retention for the vast majority of individuals will be no more than seven days.
Secure Flight will be implemented in two phases. The program will initially assume the watch list matching responsibility for passengers on domestic flights from aircraft operators beginning early 2009. In a second stage of implementation, which is targeted to begin in late 2009, the Secure Flight program would assume, from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the international air carriers, the watch list matching function for passengers on international flights.
While TSA expects Secure Flight to dramatically reduce the number of passengers misidentified as a match to the watch list, TSA will continue to provide a robust redress process through the Department of Homeland Security's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP) (www.dhs.gov/trip), a single portal for travelers to seek redress for adverse screening experiences and resolve possible watch list misidentification issues. Secure Flight will integrate DHS TRIP, preventing future delays for passengers who have successfully completed the redress process.
The 9/11 Commission Report to Congress recommends that the watch list matching function "should be performed by TSA and it should utilize the larger set of watch lists maintained by the Federal Government."
The Secure Flight Final Rule follows a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) published in the Federal Register in August 2007. The NPRM initiated a public comment period that ran through Nov. 21, 2007. The Secure Flight Final Rule is currently available at www.dhs.gov and will soon be published in the Federal Register.
Here is the address for the full PDF: http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/assets/pdf/secureflight_final_rule.pdf
====================
Although dating from October 2008 (Must have gotten in under the radar), The two phase implementation started in May of 2009, with part two starting 5 days ago.
What does this mean? The feds maintain a "watch list" which currently has over 700,000 names on it. Now every time you book a flight, the government takes your personal information and compares it to the information on the "watch List." If you are on the list, then you do not fly.
The highly disturbing part of all this is that the gubmint gets to eyeball your personal information and track every comair flight you make. If you think this system cannot be open for serious abuse think again. For example, it was reported that many Chrysler dealers who were big contributors to the Republican party had their dealerships revoked while big Dem contributors kept their dealerships. You can now have the same abuse with air travel. Want to take the family on a trip to Hawaii? Contribute to the wrong political party and TSA can flag your flight, causing you and your family endless delay.
If you do not understand all of the potential ills the Secure Flight Rule now brings, then you cannot be helped.
Those my not be goose steps in the background, but someone is reading their playbook.
Well, we still do not have to do that, but as of August 15, 2009 you now need the government's permission to travel by air.
From the Homeland Security website:
Release Date: October 22, 2008
For Immediate ReleaseOffice of the Press SecretaryContact: 202-282-8010
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today announced the issuance of the Secure Flight Final Rule, which shifts pre-departure watch list matching responsibilities from individual aircraft operators to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and carries out a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. By bringing watch list matching responsibilities in-house, TSA can better remedy possible misidentifications when a traveler's name is similar to one found on a watch list.
"Secure Flight is a critical tool that will further improve aviation security and fix the major customer service issue of watch list misidentifications, a frustratingly common occurrence for travelers under the existing airline-based system," said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. "We know that threats to our aviation system persist, and Secure Flight will help us better protect the traveling public while creating a more consistent passenger prescreening process, ultimately reducing the number of misidentification issues."
Airlines will be required under Secure Flight to collect a passenger's full name, date of birth, and gender when making an airline reservation. This additional information is expected to prevent most inconveniences at the airport, and will be particularly important for those individuals with names similar to those on the watch list.
"Secure Flight will improve security by maintaining the confidentiality of the government's watch list information while fully protecting passengers' privacy and civil liberties," said TSA Administrator Kip Hawley. "Ensuring privacy has been a cornerstone of this program and TSA has developed a comprehensive privacy plan to incorporate privacy laws and practices into all areas of Secure Flight."
TSA will receive limited information for each passenger, as well as for certain non-traveling individuals, such as those escorting a minor or disabled passenger to the gate. TSA will determine if their information matches the No Fly or Selectee lists and will transmit results back to airlines. Data retention for the vast majority of individuals will be no more than seven days.
Secure Flight will be implemented in two phases. The program will initially assume the watch list matching responsibility for passengers on domestic flights from aircraft operators beginning early 2009. In a second stage of implementation, which is targeted to begin in late 2009, the Secure Flight program would assume, from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the international air carriers, the watch list matching function for passengers on international flights.
While TSA expects Secure Flight to dramatically reduce the number of passengers misidentified as a match to the watch list, TSA will continue to provide a robust redress process through the Department of Homeland Security's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP) (www.dhs.gov/trip), a single portal for travelers to seek redress for adverse screening experiences and resolve possible watch list misidentification issues. Secure Flight will integrate DHS TRIP, preventing future delays for passengers who have successfully completed the redress process.
The 9/11 Commission Report to Congress recommends that the watch list matching function "should be performed by TSA and it should utilize the larger set of watch lists maintained by the Federal Government."
The Secure Flight Final Rule follows a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) published in the Federal Register in August 2007. The NPRM initiated a public comment period that ran through Nov. 21, 2007. The Secure Flight Final Rule is currently available at www.dhs.gov and will soon be published in the Federal Register.
Here is the address for the full PDF: http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/assets/pdf/secureflight_final_rule.pdf
====================
Although dating from October 2008 (Must have gotten in under the radar), The two phase implementation started in May of 2009, with part two starting 5 days ago.
What does this mean? The feds maintain a "watch list" which currently has over 700,000 names on it. Now every time you book a flight, the government takes your personal information and compares it to the information on the "watch List." If you are on the list, then you do not fly.
The highly disturbing part of all this is that the gubmint gets to eyeball your personal information and track every comair flight you make. If you think this system cannot be open for serious abuse think again. For example, it was reported that many Chrysler dealers who were big contributors to the Republican party had their dealerships revoked while big Dem contributors kept their dealerships. You can now have the same abuse with air travel. Want to take the family on a trip to Hawaii? Contribute to the wrong political party and TSA can flag your flight, causing you and your family endless delay.
If you do not understand all of the potential ills the Secure Flight Rule now brings, then you cannot be helped.
Those my not be goose steps in the background, but someone is reading their playbook.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Never Surrender
For the United States, WWII ended on August 14, 1945 when the Japanese announced their surrender. For Japanese Imperial Army Captain Fumio Nakahira, WWII ended when he was discovered in April, 1980 on Mount Halcon, which is on Mindoro Island in the Philippines.
I think it is a good time to reflect on this man's accomplishment. While many may deride the good Captain Nakahira as just being a dumbass soldier who refused to surrender, I have a different take on it. I consider this man a military hero of the first order. He took an oath to defend his homeland to the death and he did his best to carry out his mission.
Captain Nakahira is a man of incredible determination and fortitude, living off the land for thirty five years. Uh, how many public school educated, lazy assed Americans could match this feat? How many Americans today have any national pride or love of country?
While I'm not upset to see the Democrats imploding, their complete lack of guts on the public option of health care reform is downright sickening. The fact that so few Republicans support that option is utterly disgusting. The health care debate has shown all of us that America's days ARE numbered.
What happened to an educated electorate? Americans who have some sense of national pride and accomplishment? Public officials who do not needlessly send our soldiers to die in some third world sh*thole?----oops, that one hit a bit close to home. Where have all the American Captain Nakahiras gone? They've gone down the crapper, that's where.
We might as well rename the country the United States of morons, lazy asses and gutless wonders. A few of us (on both sides of the aisle) realize what is at stake, but it will take more than a few to solve the problem...........if it can even be solved.
So, do we at least try to support common sense legislation or do we just roll over and take it? I think the Dems have given us the answer (Republican support would be nice, but you Dems have the votes, just twist the arms), but I suppose it is not too late for one last push.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Obama caves on "Public Option", Dems toast!!
Both Bloomberg and AP are reporting that Obama is ready to drop the public option. From AP: "Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system."
I am probably one of the few hard righters to be unhappy about this as I would have liked to see a public option passed in some form.
It was not that long ago that the left was crowing about the end of the Republican party, how we were finished, blah, blah blah. That assessment may not have been too far off the mark...........until today.
We have a lefty Dem in the White House and veto proof Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and the Dems then go and bitch themselves out to the Republicans. The 'pubs are laughing their asses off at this very moment, and they should.
My question is, what carrot was used to get the public option dropped? Was it solely Republican pressure and armtwisting and threats or did some group offer the Dems a huge wad of cash to just forget about the public option, or, was it some combination of both?
For the Democratic party, the larger issue is what is a party's future that cannot even get pet legislation passed when they control the White House and Congress? The answer, of course, is the the Democrats now have no future. The Republicans will continue on, though a bit leaner than before, but for the Democrats, caving on the public option is the death knell of the party.
Though I won't be losing any sleep over the breakup of the Dems, I am saddened that they were not able to do something really necessary and constructive for the nation. I am also a bit disappointed at the stupidity of much of the American public. Does the average idiot who still has company provided health insurance think that the outfit they work for would not jump at the chance to save a grand a month plus per employee by not providing family health insurance? More and more folks will continue to lose their coverage.
No guts, no glory Dems. Rest in Peace.
I am probably one of the few hard righters to be unhappy about this as I would have liked to see a public option passed in some form.
It was not that long ago that the left was crowing about the end of the Republican party, how we were finished, blah, blah blah. That assessment may not have been too far off the mark...........until today.
We have a lefty Dem in the White House and veto proof Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and the Dems then go and bitch themselves out to the Republicans. The 'pubs are laughing their asses off at this very moment, and they should.
My question is, what carrot was used to get the public option dropped? Was it solely Republican pressure and armtwisting and threats or did some group offer the Dems a huge wad of cash to just forget about the public option, or, was it some combination of both?
For the Democratic party, the larger issue is what is a party's future that cannot even get pet legislation passed when they control the White House and Congress? The answer, of course, is the the Democrats now have no future. The Republicans will continue on, though a bit leaner than before, but for the Democrats, caving on the public option is the death knell of the party.
Though I won't be losing any sleep over the breakup of the Dems, I am saddened that they were not able to do something really necessary and constructive for the nation. I am also a bit disappointed at the stupidity of much of the American public. Does the average idiot who still has company provided health insurance think that the outfit they work for would not jump at the chance to save a grand a month plus per employee by not providing family health insurance? More and more folks will continue to lose their coverage.
No guts, no glory Dems. Rest in Peace.
Friday, August 14, 2009
The Rich Man and Lazarus
Considering how things are going in the world today, I thought it might be a good time to revisit the story of the rich man and Lazarus. From Luke 16: 19-31: 19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores."
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
====================
Short version: What goes around, comes around.
And also we have Luke 18:25:
"For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
OK, so why all the dogging out of the rich? Well, I certainly am not an advocate of socialism or communism as it has been practiced, nor do I have any problem with capitalism, in theory. The issue is that when you provide for yourself at the expense of others (over and above fair and reasonable profit), then you have a problem.
Let's look at Rush Limbaugh's earnings for example. His latest contract with Clear Channel was for 400 million dollars. We know things work a bit differently in the media world than they do in other fields when it comes to money. Rush gets a piece of the advertising revenue, which even he admits is "confiscatory." (I'll point out that Rush considers himself a Christian)
Rush has about 20 million listeners a day and if an advertiser wants to tap the listenership then they pay what they are told to pay and if they do not like it then, tough. Basically, Clear Channel, like other media firms, extort money instead of charging more realistic rates for the numbers of viewers/listeners to the show in question. Rush, like most entertainers, gets his money by overcharging advertisers. There is nowhere else a radio advertiser can go to get their message to an audience of 20 million listeners other than to Rush. I heard Glenn Beck make a comment a while ago, that he felt he was worth the 25 million a year he gets because so few other people could do his job. It is this type of thinking that earns the rich their trip to the hot fire pit of hell.
So, should the rich just start giving away all their money to the poor? No, but they should understand that they do have an obligation to help those less wealthy than themselves. Once their needs have been met, they should consider distributing some of their surplus income (perhaps in the form of additional jobs or raises) to the needy....over and above the Biblically suggested minimum of ten percent. As it is, about 20% of the people in the U.S. have 80% of the wealth. Spreading some of that around could help restore the middle class. Henry Ford figured out, a hundred years ago, that you cannot make products your employees cannot afford to buy.
What ever happened to compassionate conservatism?
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
====================
Short version: What goes around, comes around.
And also we have Luke 18:25:
"For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
OK, so why all the dogging out of the rich? Well, I certainly am not an advocate of socialism or communism as it has been practiced, nor do I have any problem with capitalism, in theory. The issue is that when you provide for yourself at the expense of others (over and above fair and reasonable profit), then you have a problem.
Let's look at Rush Limbaugh's earnings for example. His latest contract with Clear Channel was for 400 million dollars. We know things work a bit differently in the media world than they do in other fields when it comes to money. Rush gets a piece of the advertising revenue, which even he admits is "confiscatory." (I'll point out that Rush considers himself a Christian)
Rush has about 20 million listeners a day and if an advertiser wants to tap the listenership then they pay what they are told to pay and if they do not like it then, tough. Basically, Clear Channel, like other media firms, extort money instead of charging more realistic rates for the numbers of viewers/listeners to the show in question. Rush, like most entertainers, gets his money by overcharging advertisers. There is nowhere else a radio advertiser can go to get their message to an audience of 20 million listeners other than to Rush. I heard Glenn Beck make a comment a while ago, that he felt he was worth the 25 million a year he gets because so few other people could do his job. It is this type of thinking that earns the rich their trip to the hot fire pit of hell.
So, should the rich just start giving away all their money to the poor? No, but they should understand that they do have an obligation to help those less wealthy than themselves. Once their needs have been met, they should consider distributing some of their surplus income (perhaps in the form of additional jobs or raises) to the needy....over and above the Biblically suggested minimum of ten percent. As it is, about 20% of the people in the U.S. have 80% of the wealth. Spreading some of that around could help restore the middle class. Henry Ford figured out, a hundred years ago, that you cannot make products your employees cannot afford to buy.
What ever happened to compassionate conservatism?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
With liberty and healthcare for all.
Mass. healthcare reform is failing us
By Susanne L. King March 2, 2009
MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.
What would such a system provide? The prestigious Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, has defined five criteria for healthcare reform. Coverage should be: universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.
The state's plan flunks on all counts.
First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.
Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.
Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.
Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.
Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently.
In another case, a divorced mother stopped treatment for her son because the father had changed insurance, leaving them with an unaffordable deductible. And at Cambridge Health Alliance, doctors and nurses have cared for patients who, unable to afford the new copayments, were forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.
Access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care, and between community hospitals and tertiary care hospitals. Partners HealthCare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in Boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for Massachusetts, which are already the highest per person in the world. Agreements that tilt spending toward tertiary care threaten the viability of community hospitals and health centers that provide a safety net for the uninsured and underinsured.
There is, though, one US model of healthcare that meets the Institute of Medicine criteria: Medicare. Insuring everyone over 65, Medicare achieves universal coverage and access to care, is not tied to a job, and is affordable for individuals and the country. Medicare simplifies the administration of healthcare dollars, thereby saving money. We need to improve Medicare, and expand this program to include everyone.
A bill before Congress, the United States National Health Insurance Act, would provide more comprehensive coverage for all. The bill includes doctor, hospital, long-term, mental health, dental, and vision care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies, with no premiums, copayments, or deductibles.
People would be free to choose doctors and hospitals, and insurance would not be tied to a job. Costs would be controlled because health planning in a national health program can reestablish needed balance between primary/preventive care and high-tech tertiary care. A modest, progressive tax would replace what people currently pay out of pocket. This program would pay for itself by eliminating the wasteful administrative costs and profits of private insurance companies, and save $8 billion to $10 billion in Massachusetts alone.
We must let Congress know we want improved access to affordable healthcare for all, not more expensive private health insurance we can't afford to use when we are sick. Massachusetts healthcare reform fails on all five Institute of Medicine criteria. Congress should not make it a model for the nation.
Susanne L. King, M.D., practices in Berkshire County.
======================
OK, enough is enough. While the business of America is business, the health insurance companies are now pricing themselves out of business. Fewer and fewer companies can afford to supply health coverage.
When I started in retail even the cashiers got health insurance. Today, only the store manager usually gets full boat coverage included as a perk. Most department managers have their coverage partially subsidized and the rest of the employees have to pay the total (and totally unaffordable) premium.
Many of my conservative bretheren rightly worry about single payer health coverage, citing the obvious fact that the government screws up everything it tries to manage. Attempting to adopt the Massachusets model nationally would fail, as the above article states.
Affordable health coverage for all is not rocket science though. Doing nothing about health care reform will allow the ever greedy, but stupid, health insurance companies to simply end up offering coverage that will be affordable to only the top ten percent of the population---who knows, maybe that is the master plan to limit population growth? Just let the poor peons die.
Things do not have to be that way though. Dr. King favors some type of modified Medicare. I think she is on the right track. For proifit healthcare insurance companies should all be converted to non-profit corporations. Executive salaries should be limited and we should have mandatory tort reform. One part of the high cost of medicine is dealing with all the paperwork of thousands of different insurance companies. Simplify the paperwork by having a national health insurance policy standard where all policies issued must be identical in coverage with no exclusions for pre existing conditions.
I might even go so far as to suggest making Anthem the only health care company and make it a quasi governmental agency. Keep Medicare and expand it to include those who otherwise cannot afford health insurance.
Other people have other equally good suggestions, but as far as health insurance, the private sector for profit companies have got to go. Too bad the Dems lack the balls to ram through universal health care. Once you have it, then you can tweak it. If you never have the option, then the whole system will tank if things continue as they are.
By Susanne L. King March 2, 2009
MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.
What would such a system provide? The prestigious Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, has defined five criteria for healthcare reform. Coverage should be: universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.
The state's plan flunks on all counts.
First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.
Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.
Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.
Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.
Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently.
In another case, a divorced mother stopped treatment for her son because the father had changed insurance, leaving them with an unaffordable deductible. And at Cambridge Health Alliance, doctors and nurses have cared for patients who, unable to afford the new copayments, were forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.
Access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care, and between community hospitals and tertiary care hospitals. Partners HealthCare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in Boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for Massachusetts, which are already the highest per person in the world. Agreements that tilt spending toward tertiary care threaten the viability of community hospitals and health centers that provide a safety net for the uninsured and underinsured.
There is, though, one US model of healthcare that meets the Institute of Medicine criteria: Medicare. Insuring everyone over 65, Medicare achieves universal coverage and access to care, is not tied to a job, and is affordable for individuals and the country. Medicare simplifies the administration of healthcare dollars, thereby saving money. We need to improve Medicare, and expand this program to include everyone.
A bill before Congress, the United States National Health Insurance Act, would provide more comprehensive coverage for all. The bill includes doctor, hospital, long-term, mental health, dental, and vision care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies, with no premiums, copayments, or deductibles.
People would be free to choose doctors and hospitals, and insurance would not be tied to a job. Costs would be controlled because health planning in a national health program can reestablish needed balance between primary/preventive care and high-tech tertiary care. A modest, progressive tax would replace what people currently pay out of pocket. This program would pay for itself by eliminating the wasteful administrative costs and profits of private insurance companies, and save $8 billion to $10 billion in Massachusetts alone.
We must let Congress know we want improved access to affordable healthcare for all, not more expensive private health insurance we can't afford to use when we are sick. Massachusetts healthcare reform fails on all five Institute of Medicine criteria. Congress should not make it a model for the nation.
Susanne L. King, M.D., practices in Berkshire County.
======================
OK, enough is enough. While the business of America is business, the health insurance companies are now pricing themselves out of business. Fewer and fewer companies can afford to supply health coverage.
When I started in retail even the cashiers got health insurance. Today, only the store manager usually gets full boat coverage included as a perk. Most department managers have their coverage partially subsidized and the rest of the employees have to pay the total (and totally unaffordable) premium.
Many of my conservative bretheren rightly worry about single payer health coverage, citing the obvious fact that the government screws up everything it tries to manage. Attempting to adopt the Massachusets model nationally would fail, as the above article states.
Affordable health coverage for all is not rocket science though. Doing nothing about health care reform will allow the ever greedy, but stupid, health insurance companies to simply end up offering coverage that will be affordable to only the top ten percent of the population---who knows, maybe that is the master plan to limit population growth? Just let the poor peons die.
Things do not have to be that way though. Dr. King favors some type of modified Medicare. I think she is on the right track. For proifit healthcare insurance companies should all be converted to non-profit corporations. Executive salaries should be limited and we should have mandatory tort reform. One part of the high cost of medicine is dealing with all the paperwork of thousands of different insurance companies. Simplify the paperwork by having a national health insurance policy standard where all policies issued must be identical in coverage with no exclusions for pre existing conditions.
I might even go so far as to suggest making Anthem the only health care company and make it a quasi governmental agency. Keep Medicare and expand it to include those who otherwise cannot afford health insurance.
Other people have other equally good suggestions, but as far as health insurance, the private sector for profit companies have got to go. Too bad the Dems lack the balls to ram through universal health care. Once you have it, then you can tweak it. If you never have the option, then the whole system will tank if things continue as they are.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
The Bureau of Labor Statistic's July 2009 nonfarm payroll employment decline was only 247,000. This is interesting in light of ADP's estimated decline of 371,000 nonfarm jobs. Usually, the BLS figures are a bit closer to ADP's numbers.
Obviously, the gubmint is cooking the books. Actual unemployment is around 16%. There was an old saying in the Soviet Union.."if you want milk, take your pail to the radio." We are getting closer and closer to those days.
Obama is encouraging citizens to rat each other out. (email: Flag@whitehouse.gov) He is increasing his rhetoric, "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so.." we can screw the Country up a lot worse than Bush did.
Frankly, I had thought America had turned a corner when we had a majority of voters who looked past someone's skin color and put a mostly black man in the President's office. Instead of being the President of the United States and behaving accordingly, we now just have Barack Obama, H.N.I.C.. (If only Colin Powell....)
You have ACORN and the Dem controlled unions engaging in the suppression of free speech and attacking TeaPartyers. Far from helping to unify the nation, Obama and the Dems are leading us down the path of civil war. (It might be worth remembering that there are a lot more dumbass rednecks with guns than there are liberal left wing elitists, so the South might just win this one) Bottom line, Obama's brown shirts may have a tougher time than Hitler's brown shirts.
So much for the Dems being the party of love and unity. Anyone up for starting a third party..........that's actually decent?
The Bureau of Labor Statistic's July 2009 nonfarm payroll employment decline was only 247,000. This is interesting in light of ADP's estimated decline of 371,000 nonfarm jobs. Usually, the BLS figures are a bit closer to ADP's numbers.
Obviously, the gubmint is cooking the books. Actual unemployment is around 16%. There was an old saying in the Soviet Union.."if you want milk, take your pail to the radio." We are getting closer and closer to those days.
Obama is encouraging citizens to rat each other out. (email: Flag@whitehouse.gov) He is increasing his rhetoric, "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so.." we can screw the Country up a lot worse than Bush did.
Frankly, I had thought America had turned a corner when we had a majority of voters who looked past someone's skin color and put a mostly black man in the President's office. Instead of being the President of the United States and behaving accordingly, we now just have Barack Obama, H.N.I.C.. (If only Colin Powell....)
You have ACORN and the Dem controlled unions engaging in the suppression of free speech and attacking TeaPartyers. Far from helping to unify the nation, Obama and the Dems are leading us down the path of civil war. (It might be worth remembering that there are a lot more dumbass rednecks with guns than there are liberal left wing elitists, so the South might just win this one) Bottom line, Obama's brown shirts may have a tougher time than Hitler's brown shirts.
So much for the Dems being the party of love and unity. Anyone up for starting a third party..........that's actually decent?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Follow the Money
AUGUST 5, 2009 12:18PM
Follow the money.
Replying to Norman Kelley's August 3rd post about the increase in Obama haters as evidenced by the "Joker" photoshop of Obama, I indicated that someone trying to do Obama in would probably not be a redneck, but that one should "follow the money."
The birther movement was given a recent shot in the arm with the discovery of a supposedly genuine (but roundly discredited) Obama Kenyan birth certificate. The most currently notable Obama citizenship eligibility lawsuit was filed by Attorney Orly Taitz, who is also a dentist fwiw, and Taitz submitted the allegedly genuine birth certificate to the court for definitive authentication.
The interesting thing is that Dr. Taitz's husband Yosef Taitz is CEO of Daylight Chemical Information Systems. DCIS "in close collaboration" with Novartis Pharmaceutical developed the Day Cart software which is "an application using the uniqueextensibility features of Oracle8i(tm) designed to fully integrate themolecular structures and reactions in an Oracle8i database serverenvironment. As an integrated module DayCart does not require any call-outsor other operations outside of the Oracle server, in order to perform itsfunctions. DayCart delivers the speed, capacity and performance of Daylighttools throughout the organization. Use of DayCart with the Oracle8i server,unlocks the access of existing Oracle* applications and tools (such as SQL,PL/SQL, Java, C, etc.) to the array of chemical information."
So, Orly's hubbie is in the tank with Novartis, a company that could stand to lose big bucks if we go to a single payer/nationalized health care system. Yes, there is much fraud and waste with Medicare, but the government can limit the payment for certain medications and, if necessary, circumvent patent law through legislation allowing it to have generic production of drugs that were previously covered under a patent, that could erode the profits of pharmaceutical companies that spent millions of dollars on R&D for certain drugs.
I originally thought this birther thing had no wings, but following the money we see the bird my take flight (in some form) after all.
Yosef Taitz article link: http://chemport.ipe.ac.cn/cgi-bin/chemport/getfiler.cgi?ID=ChmYwAHaYyWYUq3HlOMGPUWGlcVo9W34GYXMM6nkdJUN1Ths35rJve1CPnEXyUTC&VER=C
Follow the money.
Replying to Norman Kelley's August 3rd post about the increase in Obama haters as evidenced by the "Joker" photoshop of Obama, I indicated that someone trying to do Obama in would probably not be a redneck, but that one should "follow the money."
The birther movement was given a recent shot in the arm with the discovery of a supposedly genuine (but roundly discredited) Obama Kenyan birth certificate. The most currently notable Obama citizenship eligibility lawsuit was filed by Attorney Orly Taitz, who is also a dentist fwiw, and Taitz submitted the allegedly genuine birth certificate to the court for definitive authentication.
The interesting thing is that Dr. Taitz's husband Yosef Taitz is CEO of Daylight Chemical Information Systems. DCIS "in close collaboration" with Novartis Pharmaceutical developed the Day Cart software which is "an application using the uniqueextensibility features of Oracle8i(tm) designed to fully integrate themolecular structures and reactions in an Oracle8i database serverenvironment. As an integrated module DayCart does not require any call-outsor other operations outside of the Oracle server, in order to perform itsfunctions. DayCart delivers the speed, capacity and performance of Daylighttools throughout the organization. Use of DayCart with the Oracle8i server,unlocks the access of existing Oracle* applications and tools (such as SQL,PL/SQL, Java, C, etc.) to the array of chemical information."
So, Orly's hubbie is in the tank with Novartis, a company that could stand to lose big bucks if we go to a single payer/nationalized health care system. Yes, there is much fraud and waste with Medicare, but the government can limit the payment for certain medications and, if necessary, circumvent patent law through legislation allowing it to have generic production of drugs that were previously covered under a patent, that could erode the profits of pharmaceutical companies that spent millions of dollars on R&D for certain drugs.
I originally thought this birther thing had no wings, but following the money we see the bird my take flight (in some form) after all.
Yosef Taitz article link: http://chemport.ipe.ac.cn/cgi-bin/chemport/getfiler.cgi?ID=ChmYwAHaYyWYUq3HlOMGPUWGlcVo9W34GYXMM6nkdJUN1Ths35rJve1CPnEXyUTC&VER=C
Monday, August 3, 2009
Another wrench tossed into the works.
I must admit, I did not see this one coming:From ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/defectors-tell-of--burmas-secret-nuclear-reactor-1766566.html )
Defectors tell of Burma's secret nuclear reactor
North Korea is helping country develop weapons, according to the men
By Roger Maynard in Sydney
Monday, 3 August 2009
Two of Asia's most oppressive regimes may have joined forces to develop a nuclear arsenal, according to strategic experts who have analysed information supplied by a pair of Burmese defectors.
The men, who played key roles in helping the isolated military junta before defecting to Thailand, have provided evidence which suggests Burma has enlisted North Korean help to build its own nuclear bomb within the next five years.
Details supplied by the pair, who were extensively interviewed over the past two years by Professor Desmond Ball of the Australian National University and Thai-based Irish-Australian journalist Phil Thornton, points to Burma building a secret nuclear reactor and plutonium extraction facility with the assistance of North Korea.
Thitinan Pongsudhirak, the head of Thailand's Institute of Security and International Studies, said: "The evidence is preliminary and needs to be verified, but this is something that would completely change the regional security status quo.
"It would move Myanmar [Burma] from not just being a pariah state but a rogue state – that is one that jeopardises the security and well-being of its immediate neighbours," he said.
The nuclear claims, revealed by The Sydney Morning Herald at the weekend, will ring alarm bells across Asia. The newspaper said the testimony of the two defectors brought into sharp focus the hints emerging recently from other sources, supported by sightings of North Korean delegations, that the Burmese junta, under growing pressure to democratise, was seeking a deterrent to any foreign moves to force regime change.
Their evidence also reinforces concerns expressed by Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, in Thailand last week about growing military co-operation between North Korea and Burma. "We worry about the transfer of nuclear technology and other dangerous weapons," she said at a regional security conference.
The two defectors whose briefings have created such alarm are both regarded as credible sources. One was an officer with a secret nuclear battalion in the Burmese army who was sent to Moscow for two years' training. He was part of a nuclear programme which planned to train 1,000 Burmese. "You don't need 1,000 people in the fuel cycle or to run a nuclear reactor. It's obvious there is much more going on," he said.
The other is a former executive of the regime's leading business partner, Htoo Trading, who handled nuclear contracts with Russia and North Korea. The man, who died in 2008, provided a detailed report which insisted that Burma's rationale for a nuclear programme was nonsense.
"They [the generals] say it is to produce medical isotopes for health purposes in hospitals. How many hospitals in Burma have nuclear science? he asked. "Burma can barely get electricity up and running. It's a nonsense," he said.
Professor Ball and Mr Thornton reported that the army defector claimed that there were more than five North Koreans working at the Thabeik Kyin uranium processing plant in Burma and that the country was providing yellowcake – partially refined uranium – to both Iran and North Korea.
The authors concluded that the illicit nuclear co-operation was based on a trade of locally refined uranium from Burma to North Korea in return for technological expertise.
What is missing in the nuclear chain at the moment is a plutonium reprocessing plant, but according to the army defector, one was being planned at Naung Laing in northern Burma, parallel to a civilian reactor which is already under construction with Russian help.
The secret complex would be hidden in caves tunnelled into a nearby mountain. Once Burma had its own plutonium reprocessing plant, it could produce 8kg of weapons-grade plutonium-239 a year, enough to build one nuclear bomb every 12 months.
If the testimony of the two defectors proves to be correct, the secret reactor could be operational by 2014, The Herald reported. "These two guys never met each other, never knew of each other's existence, and yet they both tell the same story basically," said Professor Ball.
"If it was just the Russian reactor, under full International Energy supervision, then the likelihood of them being able to do something with it in terms of a bomb would be zero," Professor ball said. "It's the North Korean element which adds danger to it."
========================
I suppose I should have boned up more on my Asian geography since I have never considered Burma (Now known as Myanmar) of any great significance. It is, however, the largest country by geographical area in mainland Southeast Asia. It's territory encompasses 261,227 square miles and its estimated population is 55,390,000; which is a much larger population than North Korea.
Burma has been run by various military juntas since 1962 and is currently led by Senior General Than Shwe.
Apparently, every small peckered petty dictator wants to get their slimy meathooks on a nuclear weapon and, in Burma's case, this may now be possible in the not too distant future since uranium is a plentiful natural resource there. It also just makes sense that N.Korea is providing technical assistance in return for some yellowcake. The above article mentions Iran is getting yellowcake as well. The Russians (surprise, surprise) have also been helping out. Those dang Ruskies have their hands in quite a bit of nefarious poop. (how 'bout another Russian post Don Rich?)
Depending on how far along Burma is, we may have to take out North Korea AND Burma, although our real target should probably be the Russians. Oh well, more sleepless nights ahead for the U.S. Intelligence analysts. (I figure the Israelis will "do" Iran)
Defectors tell of Burma's secret nuclear reactor
North Korea is helping country develop weapons, according to the men
By Roger Maynard in Sydney
Monday, 3 August 2009
Two of Asia's most oppressive regimes may have joined forces to develop a nuclear arsenal, according to strategic experts who have analysed information supplied by a pair of Burmese defectors.
The men, who played key roles in helping the isolated military junta before defecting to Thailand, have provided evidence which suggests Burma has enlisted North Korean help to build its own nuclear bomb within the next five years.
Details supplied by the pair, who were extensively interviewed over the past two years by Professor Desmond Ball of the Australian National University and Thai-based Irish-Australian journalist Phil Thornton, points to Burma building a secret nuclear reactor and plutonium extraction facility with the assistance of North Korea.
Thitinan Pongsudhirak, the head of Thailand's Institute of Security and International Studies, said: "The evidence is preliminary and needs to be verified, but this is something that would completely change the regional security status quo.
"It would move Myanmar [Burma] from not just being a pariah state but a rogue state – that is one that jeopardises the security and well-being of its immediate neighbours," he said.
The nuclear claims, revealed by The Sydney Morning Herald at the weekend, will ring alarm bells across Asia. The newspaper said the testimony of the two defectors brought into sharp focus the hints emerging recently from other sources, supported by sightings of North Korean delegations, that the Burmese junta, under growing pressure to democratise, was seeking a deterrent to any foreign moves to force regime change.
Their evidence also reinforces concerns expressed by Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, in Thailand last week about growing military co-operation between North Korea and Burma. "We worry about the transfer of nuclear technology and other dangerous weapons," she said at a regional security conference.
The two defectors whose briefings have created such alarm are both regarded as credible sources. One was an officer with a secret nuclear battalion in the Burmese army who was sent to Moscow for two years' training. He was part of a nuclear programme which planned to train 1,000 Burmese. "You don't need 1,000 people in the fuel cycle or to run a nuclear reactor. It's obvious there is much more going on," he said.
The other is a former executive of the regime's leading business partner, Htoo Trading, who handled nuclear contracts with Russia and North Korea. The man, who died in 2008, provided a detailed report which insisted that Burma's rationale for a nuclear programme was nonsense.
"They [the generals] say it is to produce medical isotopes for health purposes in hospitals. How many hospitals in Burma have nuclear science? he asked. "Burma can barely get electricity up and running. It's a nonsense," he said.
Professor Ball and Mr Thornton reported that the army defector claimed that there were more than five North Koreans working at the Thabeik Kyin uranium processing plant in Burma and that the country was providing yellowcake – partially refined uranium – to both Iran and North Korea.
The authors concluded that the illicit nuclear co-operation was based on a trade of locally refined uranium from Burma to North Korea in return for technological expertise.
What is missing in the nuclear chain at the moment is a plutonium reprocessing plant, but according to the army defector, one was being planned at Naung Laing in northern Burma, parallel to a civilian reactor which is already under construction with Russian help.
The secret complex would be hidden in caves tunnelled into a nearby mountain. Once Burma had its own plutonium reprocessing plant, it could produce 8kg of weapons-grade plutonium-239 a year, enough to build one nuclear bomb every 12 months.
If the testimony of the two defectors proves to be correct, the secret reactor could be operational by 2014, The Herald reported. "These two guys never met each other, never knew of each other's existence, and yet they both tell the same story basically," said Professor Ball.
"If it was just the Russian reactor, under full International Energy supervision, then the likelihood of them being able to do something with it in terms of a bomb would be zero," Professor ball said. "It's the North Korean element which adds danger to it."
========================
I suppose I should have boned up more on my Asian geography since I have never considered Burma (Now known as Myanmar) of any great significance. It is, however, the largest country by geographical area in mainland Southeast Asia. It's territory encompasses 261,227 square miles and its estimated population is 55,390,000; which is a much larger population than North Korea.
Burma has been run by various military juntas since 1962 and is currently led by Senior General Than Shwe.
Apparently, every small peckered petty dictator wants to get their slimy meathooks on a nuclear weapon and, in Burma's case, this may now be possible in the not too distant future since uranium is a plentiful natural resource there. It also just makes sense that N.Korea is providing technical assistance in return for some yellowcake. The above article mentions Iran is getting yellowcake as well. The Russians (surprise, surprise) have also been helping out. Those dang Ruskies have their hands in quite a bit of nefarious poop. (how 'bout another Russian post Don Rich?)
Depending on how far along Burma is, we may have to take out North Korea AND Burma, although our real target should probably be the Russians. Oh well, more sleepless nights ahead for the U.S. Intelligence analysts. (I figure the Israelis will "do" Iran)
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Pelosi: Throwing Insurance Companies Under The Bus. Why?
Here is the latest gem from U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nanci Pelosi, via Reuters: "U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday ramped up her criticism of insurance companies, accusing them of unethical behavior and working to kill a plan to create a new government-run health plan."
"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding, "They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."
Hmmmmmmmmmm, so, what is up with that? We all know the Donkeys and Elephants get big contributions from big business, but why is Pelosi biting the hand that feeds her?
We may have the answer:(from dailyfinance.com link:http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/07/31/after-182-billion-taxpayer-rescue-is-aig-on-the-verge-of-colla/) Is AIG on the verge of Collapse? You may remember American International Group (AIG). The U.S. government gave it $182 billion of taxpayer money last fall in exchange for a 78 percent stake. Of that money, $165 million went for bonuses to a handful of people in its Financial Products Group (FPG), which sold Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) on which AIG lacked the capital to make good. And $200 million more is slated for those good folks in 2009.
Another $12.9 billion of our taxpayer money went to Goldman Sachs Group (GS) so AIG could pay Goldman 100 cents on the dollar for its CDSs. Hank Paulson wanted to keep the names of Goldman and the other recipients secret -- since so many of them were foreign banks, but the information leaked out in March 2009 after Paulson left office.
Now, thanks to some solid reporting in The New York Times, it looks like the rot at AIG is not limited to FPG. While AIG officials have claimed that its problems were isolated to FPG, the reality is that AIG seems to have been running something akin to a shell game of massive proportions. Its shell game version took the form of selling insurance and assigning the resultant risks among its 71 different North American insurance companies.
Thanks to AIG's regulatory arbitrage -- taking advantage of the fact that its 19 state insurance regulators never conduct examinations at the same time -- AIG may have been able to shift assets among the companies to fool state regulators. If one its companies did not have enough money set aside as reserves against future claims, AIG could move assets to that reserve-deficient company right before the state insurance examiner moved in. And once that examiner was gone, AIG could in theory shift the extra cash to the next reserves-deficient company.
Want an example? Consider AIG affiliate National Union (NU). AIG indicated to Pennsylvania state insurance investigators that it had $33.7 billion in assets at the end of 2008 -- more than enough to protect against $21.9 billion in liabilities. But what the Pennsylvania regulators did not see is that $10.9 billion worth of NU's assets were investments in other AIG affiliates, which are not publicly traded and whose value is hard to measure. Subtract that and you have only $22.8 billion in assets.
But wait -- there's more. NU had $42 billion more in liabilities that the Pennsylvania regulators missed. How so? NU had obligations to pay claims of other AIG insurance affiliates -- the biggest of which was $23.1 billion that it owed AIG affiliate American Home (AH). NU owed another $19 billion to several other AIG afiiliates.
Meanwhile, AH had crushing obligations of its own. While the New York state regulators thought it had $26.3 billion in assets to a mere $19.9 billion in liabilities, the reality was far more dire. How so? AH was on the hook for an additional $120.7 billion in guarantees to 16 other AIG affiliates. Thus AH's liabilities really exceeded its assets by $114 billion.
To summarize, AIG's core insurance companies seem to be like a shell game which AIG was able to continue operating because it was able to keep the cash moving from the affiliate that one state regulator had just examined to the one that another state regulator was about to examine.
Unfortunately, it would not surprise me if this was happening and continues to happen at all big U.S. insurance companies. Moreover, I would be shocked if former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg -- who has heaped scorn on his successors -- was unaware of this practice. (Peter Cohan wrote this article)
===========================
The Democrats could have a serious problem since it now looks like AIG was just another giant shell game. The only way the Dems can get out of this is with a quiet bailout, again, of AIG. I think the cat is out of the bag though and Pelosi is distancing herself while getting ready for the new catastrophe of an AIG failure.
You do have to hand it to those AIG boys though. Run a huge multi-billion dollar scam, get the federal government to give you 182 billion, use 165 million of that for bonuses to executives "too valuable to lose" and now you may get even more money. Crime does pay.
I think you will find this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to insurance company scams and incompetence. I overheard a conversation the other day between two long term care insurance company execs. One mentioned that they had badly underestimated how many of their policyholders would be in need of long term care and that they needed to kick up their premiums by 40% or in a few years they would be out of money. Long term care is yet another healthcare issue that we will need to deal with.
Pelosi and the Dems could be in major trouble if AIG tanks, and it looks like some really bad things are going on there.
"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding, "They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."
Hmmmmmmmmmm, so, what is up with that? We all know the Donkeys and Elephants get big contributions from big business, but why is Pelosi biting the hand that feeds her?
We may have the answer:(from dailyfinance.com link:http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/07/31/after-182-billion-taxpayer-rescue-is-aig-on-the-verge-of-colla/) Is AIG on the verge of Collapse? You may remember American International Group (AIG). The U.S. government gave it $182 billion of taxpayer money last fall in exchange for a 78 percent stake. Of that money, $165 million went for bonuses to a handful of people in its Financial Products Group (FPG), which sold Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) on which AIG lacked the capital to make good. And $200 million more is slated for those good folks in 2009.
Another $12.9 billion of our taxpayer money went to Goldman Sachs Group (GS) so AIG could pay Goldman 100 cents on the dollar for its CDSs. Hank Paulson wanted to keep the names of Goldman and the other recipients secret -- since so many of them were foreign banks, but the information leaked out in March 2009 after Paulson left office.
Now, thanks to some solid reporting in The New York Times, it looks like the rot at AIG is not limited to FPG. While AIG officials have claimed that its problems were isolated to FPG, the reality is that AIG seems to have been running something akin to a shell game of massive proportions. Its shell game version took the form of selling insurance and assigning the resultant risks among its 71 different North American insurance companies.
Thanks to AIG's regulatory arbitrage -- taking advantage of the fact that its 19 state insurance regulators never conduct examinations at the same time -- AIG may have been able to shift assets among the companies to fool state regulators. If one its companies did not have enough money set aside as reserves against future claims, AIG could move assets to that reserve-deficient company right before the state insurance examiner moved in. And once that examiner was gone, AIG could in theory shift the extra cash to the next reserves-deficient company.
Want an example? Consider AIG affiliate National Union (NU). AIG indicated to Pennsylvania state insurance investigators that it had $33.7 billion in assets at the end of 2008 -- more than enough to protect against $21.9 billion in liabilities. But what the Pennsylvania regulators did not see is that $10.9 billion worth of NU's assets were investments in other AIG affiliates, which are not publicly traded and whose value is hard to measure. Subtract that and you have only $22.8 billion in assets.
But wait -- there's more. NU had $42 billion more in liabilities that the Pennsylvania regulators missed. How so? NU had obligations to pay claims of other AIG insurance affiliates -- the biggest of which was $23.1 billion that it owed AIG affiliate American Home (AH). NU owed another $19 billion to several other AIG afiiliates.
Meanwhile, AH had crushing obligations of its own. While the New York state regulators thought it had $26.3 billion in assets to a mere $19.9 billion in liabilities, the reality was far more dire. How so? AH was on the hook for an additional $120.7 billion in guarantees to 16 other AIG affiliates. Thus AH's liabilities really exceeded its assets by $114 billion.
To summarize, AIG's core insurance companies seem to be like a shell game which AIG was able to continue operating because it was able to keep the cash moving from the affiliate that one state regulator had just examined to the one that another state regulator was about to examine.
Unfortunately, it would not surprise me if this was happening and continues to happen at all big U.S. insurance companies. Moreover, I would be shocked if former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg -- who has heaped scorn on his successors -- was unaware of this practice. (Peter Cohan wrote this article)
===========================
The Democrats could have a serious problem since it now looks like AIG was just another giant shell game. The only way the Dems can get out of this is with a quiet bailout, again, of AIG. I think the cat is out of the bag though and Pelosi is distancing herself while getting ready for the new catastrophe of an AIG failure.
You do have to hand it to those AIG boys though. Run a huge multi-billion dollar scam, get the federal government to give you 182 billion, use 165 million of that for bonuses to executives "too valuable to lose" and now you may get even more money. Crime does pay.
I think you will find this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to insurance company scams and incompetence. I overheard a conversation the other day between two long term care insurance company execs. One mentioned that they had badly underestimated how many of their policyholders would be in need of long term care and that they needed to kick up their premiums by 40% or in a few years they would be out of money. Long term care is yet another healthcare issue that we will need to deal with.
Pelosi and the Dems could be in major trouble if AIG tanks, and it looks like some really bad things are going on there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed
Posts
All Comments