Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The FCC wants jurisdiction over everything
Notice the laughter in the background to make it try to sound like a joke. The laughter didn't come from the speaker. When I say things like that, with the expression she had I'm serious, and she is too.
Survey: Obama disappoints Muslims
Original Post: Politico
President Barack Obama’s efforts to improve diplomatic relations with Muslim nations have not translated into favorable images of the United States in key Muslim countries, according to a survey released Thursday by the Pew Global Attitudes Project.
The Pew Global Attitudes survey found that the popularity of the United States remained low, and in some cases decreased, because of continued disagreements over U.S. policies. The results show the limits of Obama’s approach if it is not tied to concrete changes in policy.
In Turkey and Pakistan, only 17 percent of the public hold favorable views of the United States, the Pew survey found. Obama’s popularity ratings fell from 41 percent to 31 percent in Turkey, while the ratings plunged to single digits among Pakistani Muslims, from 13 percent in 2009 to a mere 8 percent this year.
Obama’s June 2009 speech to the Muslim world in Cairo generated cautious optimism about his presidency. The latest Pew survey found that has mostly evaporated.
In Egypt, U.S. favorability ratings dropped 10 percentage points from 27 percent to 17 percent — the lowest since Pew began surveys in that country in 2006.
“The popularity of the idea of Obama does not translate into support for concrete U.S. policies,” said former Sen. John Danforth at a news conference to discuss the poll results. “The world likes the idea of Obama and the idea of a guy who ran for office with the concept of change. But the harder the issue and more concrete the actions of the U.S., the less support we’re going to see.”
The survey’s findings reflect a general resentment in Muslim nations of unilateral actions by the United States, said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. “We don’t like Osama bin Laden, terrorism and the United States acting unilaterally on these efforts,” he said, summarizing how Muslims viewed U.S. policy in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright added that Obama must still learn how to develop relations with Muslims to reconcile policy differences.
“The Muslim story shows there is not as much support for extremism, but there is still the sense that we don’t understand the Muslim world.” Albright said.
The decreased level of approval for U.S. policies among Muslims, however, was accompanied by continued favorable views of the United States in Western Europe: 73 percent in France, 65 percent in Britain and 63 percent in Germany.
Positive attitudes toward the United States shot up significantly in those countries after Obama’s inauguration and have settled a bit but remain high in comparison with those during the George W. Bush years.
The Pew survey was conducted among more than 24,000 people in 22 nations from April 7 to May 8. The findings include ratings of Obama and the United States in Western European, Asian, Latin American and African countries.
President Barack Obama’s efforts to improve diplomatic relations with Muslim nations have not translated into favorable images of the United States in key Muslim countries, according to a survey released Thursday by the Pew Global Attitudes Project.
The Pew Global Attitudes survey found that the popularity of the United States remained low, and in some cases decreased, because of continued disagreements over U.S. policies. The results show the limits of Obama’s approach if it is not tied to concrete changes in policy.
In Turkey and Pakistan, only 17 percent of the public hold favorable views of the United States, the Pew survey found. Obama’s popularity ratings fell from 41 percent to 31 percent in Turkey, while the ratings plunged to single digits among Pakistani Muslims, from 13 percent in 2009 to a mere 8 percent this year.
Obama’s June 2009 speech to the Muslim world in Cairo generated cautious optimism about his presidency. The latest Pew survey found that has mostly evaporated.
In Egypt, U.S. favorability ratings dropped 10 percentage points from 27 percent to 17 percent — the lowest since Pew began surveys in that country in 2006.
“The popularity of the idea of Obama does not translate into support for concrete U.S. policies,” said former Sen. John Danforth at a news conference to discuss the poll results. “The world likes the idea of Obama and the idea of a guy who ran for office with the concept of change. But the harder the issue and more concrete the actions of the U.S., the less support we’re going to see.”
The survey’s findings reflect a general resentment in Muslim nations of unilateral actions by the United States, said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. “We don’t like Osama bin Laden, terrorism and the United States acting unilaterally on these efforts,” he said, summarizing how Muslims viewed U.S. policy in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright added that Obama must still learn how to develop relations with Muslims to reconcile policy differences.
“The Muslim story shows there is not as much support for extremism, but there is still the sense that we don’t understand the Muslim world.” Albright said.
The decreased level of approval for U.S. policies among Muslims, however, was accompanied by continued favorable views of the United States in Western Europe: 73 percent in France, 65 percent in Britain and 63 percent in Germany.
Positive attitudes toward the United States shot up significantly in those countries after Obama’s inauguration and have settled a bit but remain high in comparison with those during the George W. Bush years.
The Pew survey was conducted among more than 24,000 people in 22 nations from April 7 to May 8. The findings include ratings of Obama and the United States in Western European, Asian, Latin American and African countries.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
How reducing our carbon increases carbon
Given that China and India refuse to commit to reduce their carbon output, I will lay out the case for you that any such caps we place on ourselves in the U.S. will actually INCREASE carbon out put overall.
Our Cap in Tax schemes will drive up the cost of energy which will in turn drive up the cost to make things. This is because to make things, you need energy which will cost more. If you can sell an item for the same amount of money, but pay less to make it...say by moving your production to a place that costs less to make an item, like China or India, if you have the means you will do so. These companies will not only save on energy, but also production as they can pay their workers less money for the same output. Your overhead will go down, your sale price can remain the same giving you more profit, which is desirable for a company.
Given that China and India have lower environmental controls than we do (which is self-evident) it is also highly likely that at least some of the companies that move will operate their productions to skimp on the cleanliness of their operations in order to save money which will put more pollution and carbon into the air. More carbon than if they had been incentivised to remain in the U.S. with our higher environmental standards.
So in conclusion, if you insist on introducing more Cap and Trade style taxations and drive up the cost of energy, and believe that man made carbon is killing the planet, you are killing the planet with Cap and Trade style taxations.
Our Cap in Tax schemes will drive up the cost of energy which will in turn drive up the cost to make things. This is because to make things, you need energy which will cost more. If you can sell an item for the same amount of money, but pay less to make it...say by moving your production to a place that costs less to make an item, like China or India, if you have the means you will do so. These companies will not only save on energy, but also production as they can pay their workers less money for the same output. Your overhead will go down, your sale price can remain the same giving you more profit, which is desirable for a company.
Given that China and India have lower environmental controls than we do (which is self-evident) it is also highly likely that at least some of the companies that move will operate their productions to skimp on the cleanliness of their operations in order to save money which will put more pollution and carbon into the air. More carbon than if they had been incentivised to remain in the U.S. with our higher environmental standards.
So in conclusion, if you insist on introducing more Cap and Trade style taxations and drive up the cost of energy, and believe that man made carbon is killing the planet, you are killing the planet with Cap and Trade style taxations.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The left wants us to invade England?
AND
Seize BP
I'm not sure if they know this or not but BP stands for "Beyond Petroleum" which was formerly "British Petroleum". It still is a BRITISH BASED COMPANY!
So the same liberals who claimed we were illegally invading
Iraq now want us to nationalize a private, foreign company, under the preview of our Allies? What world do we live in?
We're already causing economic harm to our British Ally now we're supposed to seize their property too? Can't we limit our authoritarian theft of private property to our own county? Apparently not.
Barbara Boxer is dumber than my socks
Boxer declared that “carbon pollution leading to climate change will be, over the next 20 years, the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm's way."
Ok so Barbara's premise is: man does stuff --> Carbon --> Earth get's hot --> American troops die? How does this make sense? Is there a step I'm missing. I want not to pay attention to this idiotic statement but for some reason it makes sense to her. English is apparently her first language so there's nothing lost in translation.
My socks have never said anything so stupid and are more qualified to be in the Senate than she is.
Ok so Barbara's premise is: man does stuff --> Carbon --> Earth get's hot --> American troops die? How does this make sense? Is there a step I'm missing. I want not to pay attention to this idiotic statement but for some reason it makes sense to her. English is apparently her first language so there's nothing lost in translation.
My socks have never said anything so stupid and are more qualified to be in the Senate than she is.
Cowboy Obama goes it alone at oil spill
Dutch oil spill response team on standby for US oil disaster
Original Post: RNW
By: Johan Huizinga
Two Dutch companies are on stand-by to help the Americans tackle an oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico. The two companies use huge booms to sweep and suck the oil from the surface of the sea. The US authorities, however, have difficulties with the method they use.
What do the Dutch have that the Americans don’t when it comes to tackling oil spills at sea? “Skimmers,” answers Wierd Koops, chairman of the Dutch organisation for combating oil spills, Spill Response Group Holland.
Few disasters caused by oil platforms
The leak in the Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico could cause the worst ever oil pollution in the history of the United States. Until now oil platforms have seldom caused major environmental disasters. The biggest environmental disaster caused by an oil platform before now was in March 2001 when the P-36 belonging to Brazil's oil company Petrobras leaked. The oil slick measured 400 square kilometres. By comparison: the Deepwater Horizon spill already covers an area of almost 10,000 square kilometres.
Worst oil disaster until now in US the US tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989, which ran ground in William Sound off Alaska. In 1978 360 kilometres of the coast of Brittany was polluted with oil from the Liberian tanker Amoco Cadiz, which broke in two.
In 1999 Erika, a tanker registered in Malta, ran into rocks off Brittany and polluted 200 kilometres of the French coastline. In 1992 the Spanish Galician coast was polluted after the Greek tanker Aegean Sea broke in two and exploded. Piper Alpha
The worst ever oil platform disaster was the explosion on the North sea platform Piper Alpha in July 1988, almost 200 kilometres north of Aberdeen in Scotland. 167 people were killed and the damage amounted to almost a billion euros. 62 workers survived, many of them by diving into the sea.
In the 1980s in particular, many oil platforms capsized across the world as the result of hurricanes, with hundreds of people losing their lives.
The Americans don’t have spill response vessels with skimmers because their environment regulations do not allow it. With the Dutch method seawater is sucked up with the oil by the skimmer. The oil is stored in the tanker and the superfluous water is pumped overboard. But the water does contain some oil residue, and that is too much according to US environment regulations.]
US regulations contradictory
Wierd Koops thinks the US approach is nonsense, because otherwise you would have to store the surplus seawater in the tanks as well.
“We say no, you have to get as much oil as possible into the storage tanks and as little water as possible. So we pump the water, which contains drops of oil, back overboard.”
US regulations are contradictory, Mr Knoops stresses. Pumping water back into the sea with oil residue is not allowed. But you are allowed to combat the spill with chemicals so that the oil dissolves in the seawater. In both cases, the dissolved oil is naturally broken down quite quickly.
It is possible the Americans will opt for the Dutch method as the damage the oil spill could cause to the mud flats and salt marshes along the coast is much worse, warns Wetland expert Hans Revier.
“You have to make sure you clear up the oil at sea. As soon as the oil reaches the mud flats and salt marshes, it is too late. The only thing you can do then is dig it up. But then the solution is worse than the problem.”
Listen to the Newsline interview with Hans Revier
Wadden Sea experiments
Hans Revier, lector in Marine Wetland Studies at the Stenden College in Leeuwarden, recollects experiments in the Dutch Wadden Sea wetlands. When combined oil and gas pipelines were to be laid in the area, experiments to combat potential oil spills were held.
“It turned out that dissolving the oil with chemicals caused more damage than the oil itself. And burning the oil didn’t help either. That leaves just one solution: to allow nature to take its course. It took almost ten years for the oil to break down naturally from the tanker Amoco Cadiz which stranded off the French coast in 1978 and for the environment to recover.”
That leaves the Americans no alternative. If they want to save the mud flats and salt marshes along the coast they will have to adopt the Dutch method. It can be done very quickly, because only the oil skimmers need to be flown across the Atlantic and placed on local tankers, explains Mr Koops.
Senator convinced
A team of around eight men are on stand-by and four skimmers and extra material are ready to be loaded. The local senator is already convinced and is trying to talk the admiral who is coordinating the operation into accepting help from the Netherlands. The answer may be given today.
But nothing is certain. In 1989, a Dutch team and equipment had already been flown in to tackle the Exxon Valdez oil tanker disaster off the coast of Alaska. But in the end the US authorities sent them home.
Original Post: RNW
By: Johan Huizinga
Two Dutch companies are on stand-by to help the Americans tackle an oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico. The two companies use huge booms to sweep and suck the oil from the surface of the sea. The US authorities, however, have difficulties with the method they use.
What do the Dutch have that the Americans don’t when it comes to tackling oil spills at sea? “Skimmers,” answers Wierd Koops, chairman of the Dutch organisation for combating oil spills, Spill Response Group Holland.
Few disasters caused by oil platforms
The leak in the Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico could cause the worst ever oil pollution in the history of the United States. Until now oil platforms have seldom caused major environmental disasters. The biggest environmental disaster caused by an oil platform before now was in March 2001 when the P-36 belonging to Brazil's oil company Petrobras leaked. The oil slick measured 400 square kilometres. By comparison: the Deepwater Horizon spill already covers an area of almost 10,000 square kilometres.
Worst oil disaster until now in US the US tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989, which ran ground in William Sound off Alaska. In 1978 360 kilometres of the coast of Brittany was polluted with oil from the Liberian tanker Amoco Cadiz, which broke in two.
In 1999 Erika, a tanker registered in Malta, ran into rocks off Brittany and polluted 200 kilometres of the French coastline. In 1992 the Spanish Galician coast was polluted after the Greek tanker Aegean Sea broke in two and exploded. Piper Alpha
The worst ever oil platform disaster was the explosion on the North sea platform Piper Alpha in July 1988, almost 200 kilometres north of Aberdeen in Scotland. 167 people were killed and the damage amounted to almost a billion euros. 62 workers survived, many of them by diving into the sea.
In the 1980s in particular, many oil platforms capsized across the world as the result of hurricanes, with hundreds of people losing their lives.
The Americans don’t have spill response vessels with skimmers because their environment regulations do not allow it. With the Dutch method seawater is sucked up with the oil by the skimmer. The oil is stored in the tanker and the superfluous water is pumped overboard. But the water does contain some oil residue, and that is too much according to US environment regulations.]
US regulations contradictory
Wierd Koops thinks the US approach is nonsense, because otherwise you would have to store the surplus seawater in the tanks as well.
“We say no, you have to get as much oil as possible into the storage tanks and as little water as possible. So we pump the water, which contains drops of oil, back overboard.”
US regulations are contradictory, Mr Knoops stresses. Pumping water back into the sea with oil residue is not allowed. But you are allowed to combat the spill with chemicals so that the oil dissolves in the seawater. In both cases, the dissolved oil is naturally broken down quite quickly.
It is possible the Americans will opt for the Dutch method as the damage the oil spill could cause to the mud flats and salt marshes along the coast is much worse, warns Wetland expert Hans Revier.
“You have to make sure you clear up the oil at sea. As soon as the oil reaches the mud flats and salt marshes, it is too late. The only thing you can do then is dig it up. But then the solution is worse than the problem.”
Listen to the Newsline interview with Hans Revier
Wadden Sea experiments
Hans Revier, lector in Marine Wetland Studies at the Stenden College in Leeuwarden, recollects experiments in the Dutch Wadden Sea wetlands. When combined oil and gas pipelines were to be laid in the area, experiments to combat potential oil spills were held.
“It turned out that dissolving the oil with chemicals caused more damage than the oil itself. And burning the oil didn’t help either. That leaves just one solution: to allow nature to take its course. It took almost ten years for the oil to break down naturally from the tanker Amoco Cadiz which stranded off the French coast in 1978 and for the environment to recover.”
That leaves the Americans no alternative. If they want to save the mud flats and salt marshes along the coast they will have to adopt the Dutch method. It can be done very quickly, because only the oil skimmers need to be flown across the Atlantic and placed on local tankers, explains Mr Koops.
Senator convinced
A team of around eight men are on stand-by and four skimmers and extra material are ready to be loaded. The local senator is already convinced and is trying to talk the admiral who is coordinating the operation into accepting help from the Netherlands. The answer may be given today.
But nothing is certain. In 1989, a Dutch team and equipment had already been flown in to tackle the Exxon Valdez oil tanker disaster off the coast of Alaska. But in the end the US authorities sent them home.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Dems spark alarm with call for national ID card
Original Post: The Hill
By Alexander Bolton
A plan by Senate Democratic leaders to reform the nation’s immigration laws ran into strong opposition from civil liberties defenders before lawmakers even unveiled it Thursday.
Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.
The proposal is one of the biggest differences between the newest immigration reform proposal and legislation crafted by late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
The national ID program would be titled the Believe System, an acronym for Biometric Enrollment, Locally stored Information and Electronic Verification of Employment.
It would require all workers across the nation to carry a card with a digital encryption key that would have to match work authorization databases.
“The cardholder’s identity will be verified by matching the biometric identifier stored within the microprocessing chip on the card to the identifier provided by the cardholder that shall be read by the scanner used by the employer,” states the Democratic legislative proposal.
The American Civil Liberties Union, a civil liberties defender often aligned with the Democratic Party, wasted no time in blasting the plan.
“Creating a biometric national ID will not only be astronomically expensive, it will usher government into the very center of our lives. Every worker in America will need a government permission slip in order to work. And all of this will come with a new federal bureaucracy — one that combines the worst elements of the DMV and the TSA,” said Christopher Calabrese, ACLU legislative counsel.
“America’s broken immigration system needs real, workable reform, but it cannot come at the expense of privacy and individual freedoms,” Calabrese added.
The ACLU said “if the biometric national ID card provision of the draft bill becomes law, every worker in America would have to be fingerprinted.”
A source at one pro-immigration reform group described the proposal as “Orwellian.”
But Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), who has worked on the proposal and helped unveil it at a press conference Thursday, predicted the public has become more comfortable with the idea of a national identification card.
“The biometric identification card is a critical element here,” Durbin said. “For a long time it was resisted by many groups, but now we live in a world where we take off our shoes at the airport and pull out our identification.
“People understand that in this vulnerable world, we have to be able to present identification,” Durbin added. “We want it to be reliable, and I think that’s going to help us in this debate on immigration.”
Implementing a nationwide identification program for every worker will be a difficult task.
The Social Security Administration has estimated that 3.6 million Americans would have to visit SSA field offices to correct mistakes in records or else risk losing their jobs.
Angela Kelley, vice president of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said the biometric identification provision “will give some people pause.”
But she applauded Democrats for not shying away from the toughest issues in the immigration reform debate.
“What I like about the outline is that Democrats are not trying to hide the ball or soft-pedal the tough decisions,” Kelley said. “It seems a very sincere effort to get the conversation started. This is a serious effort to get Republicans to the table.”
Reform Immigration for America, a pro-immigrant group, praised Democrats for getting the discussion started but said the framework fell short.
“The proposal revealed today [Thursday] is in part the result of more than a year of bipartisan negotiations and represents a possible path forward on immigration reform,” the group said in a statement. “This framework is not there yet.”
Democrats and pro-immigration groups will now begin to put pressure on Republicans to participate in serious talks to address the issue. The bipartisan effort in the Senate suffered a serious setback when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pulled back from talks with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).
“We call on Republican Senators to review this framework and sit down at the negotiating table in good faith,” Reform Immigration for America said in a statement. “This is a national problem that requires a federal solution and the input of leaders in both parties.”
Durbin said Democratic leaders are trying to recruit other Republican partners.
“We’re making a commitment to establishing a framework to work toward comprehensive immigration reform, and I think it’s a good framework and now we’re engaging our friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in this conversation,” Durbin said.
By Alexander Bolton
A plan by Senate Democratic leaders to reform the nation’s immigration laws ran into strong opposition from civil liberties defenders before lawmakers even unveiled it Thursday.
Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.
The proposal is one of the biggest differences between the newest immigration reform proposal and legislation crafted by late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
The national ID program would be titled the Believe System, an acronym for Biometric Enrollment, Locally stored Information and Electronic Verification of Employment.
It would require all workers across the nation to carry a card with a digital encryption key that would have to match work authorization databases.
“The cardholder’s identity will be verified by matching the biometric identifier stored within the microprocessing chip on the card to the identifier provided by the cardholder that shall be read by the scanner used by the employer,” states the Democratic legislative proposal.
The American Civil Liberties Union, a civil liberties defender often aligned with the Democratic Party, wasted no time in blasting the plan.
“Creating a biometric national ID will not only be astronomically expensive, it will usher government into the very center of our lives. Every worker in America will need a government permission slip in order to work. And all of this will come with a new federal bureaucracy — one that combines the worst elements of the DMV and the TSA,” said Christopher Calabrese, ACLU legislative counsel.
“America’s broken immigration system needs real, workable reform, but it cannot come at the expense of privacy and individual freedoms,” Calabrese added.
The ACLU said “if the biometric national ID card provision of the draft bill becomes law, every worker in America would have to be fingerprinted.”
A source at one pro-immigration reform group described the proposal as “Orwellian.”
But Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), who has worked on the proposal and helped unveil it at a press conference Thursday, predicted the public has become more comfortable with the idea of a national identification card.
“The biometric identification card is a critical element here,” Durbin said. “For a long time it was resisted by many groups, but now we live in a world where we take off our shoes at the airport and pull out our identification.
“People understand that in this vulnerable world, we have to be able to present identification,” Durbin added. “We want it to be reliable, and I think that’s going to help us in this debate on immigration.”
Implementing a nationwide identification program for every worker will be a difficult task.
The Social Security Administration has estimated that 3.6 million Americans would have to visit SSA field offices to correct mistakes in records or else risk losing their jobs.
Angela Kelley, vice president of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said the biometric identification provision “will give some people pause.”
But she applauded Democrats for not shying away from the toughest issues in the immigration reform debate.
“What I like about the outline is that Democrats are not trying to hide the ball or soft-pedal the tough decisions,” Kelley said. “It seems a very sincere effort to get the conversation started. This is a serious effort to get Republicans to the table.”
Reform Immigration for America, a pro-immigrant group, praised Democrats for getting the discussion started but said the framework fell short.
“The proposal revealed today [Thursday] is in part the result of more than a year of bipartisan negotiations and represents a possible path forward on immigration reform,” the group said in a statement. “This framework is not there yet.”
Democrats and pro-immigration groups will now begin to put pressure on Republicans to participate in serious talks to address the issue. The bipartisan effort in the Senate suffered a serious setback when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pulled back from talks with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).
“We call on Republican Senators to review this framework and sit down at the negotiating table in good faith,” Reform Immigration for America said in a statement. “This is a national problem that requires a federal solution and the input of leaders in both parties.”
Durbin said Democratic leaders are trying to recruit other Republican partners.
“We’re making a commitment to establishing a framework to work toward comprehensive immigration reform, and I think it’s a good framework and now we’re engaging our friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in this conversation,” Durbin said.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
First victim of health care overhaul?
Original Post: Politio
By: SARAH KLIFF
A Virginia-based insurance company says “considerable uncertainties” created by the Democrats’ health care overhaul will force it to close its doors by the end of the year.
The firm, nHealth, appears to be the first to claim that the new law has driven it out of business. “We don’t know what the rules are going to be, and, as a start-up, our investors need certainty,” nHealth CEO and President Paul Kitchen told POLITICO. “The law created so much uncertainty that is beyond our control.”
Last week, in a letter to the company’s 50 or so employees, Executive Vice President James Slabaugh said nHealth has stopped accepting new group customers and will terminate all business by Dec. 31.
“The uncertainties in the regulatory climate coupled with new demands imposed by national health care reforms have made it challenging to sustain the level of sales required to remain viable over the long run,” Slabaugh wrote.
The company’s finger-pointing — first reported by the newspaper Richmond BizSense — must be read with caution: For years, employers and health insurance brokers have struggled to keep pace with steeply rising health care costs.
Asked about nHealth’s decision to shut down, a White House aide said, “It’s difficult to comment on this case without fully evaluating the company in question.”
The blame game — whether health reform can be held responsible for the continuing woes of an already struggling system — will very likely become a familiar plotline as the health overhaul takes effect and political parties vie for control of the narrative.
President Barack Obama dives back into the fray Tuesday, traveling to a senior center in Wheaton, Md., for a national tele-town hall on health care.
NHealth opened for business about 2½ years ago and was named in October 2008 one of the “Greater Richmond Companies to Watch” by a local business group. Kitchen estimates the company has about 100 small-business contracts providing policies to “thousands” of subscribers.
NHealth specializes in high-deductible insurance plans, meant to cover larger medical emergencies, that are paired with health savings accounts, the tax-deductible accounts used to pay for medical expenses.
HSAs have grown dramatically since they were authorized in the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act. There were about 1 million enrollees in 2005. Now there are about 10 million, according to a May 2010 report from the industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans.
HSAs are a favorite of conservative health economists, who see the plans as a way to control costs by leaving spending decisions to individual consumers. Others have criticized the plans as discouraging cost-saving behavior such as preventive care.
And restaurants are not expanding in order to keep under the limits thus denying jobs.
Restaurants pinched by health reform bill
By: Milwaukee Bizjournals
National health care reform is expected to hit the restaurant industry particularly hard, as Milwaukee-area George Webb franchisee Tom Aldridge understands.
It may not have been part of his original agenda, but reform is prompting Aldridge to significantly alter his business plan.
Instead of continuing on a course to grow his George Webb franchise, Aldridge is expecting to sell two of his five restaurants — eliminating 25 employees in the process — to avoid having to provide health insurance for his workers at a pricey cost.
Under the health care bill passed by Congress in March, employers with more than an equivalent of 50 full-time employees are to provide health care coverage to all workers by 2014 or face a fine of $2,000 per uncovered employee.
By: SARAH KLIFF
A Virginia-based insurance company says “considerable uncertainties” created by the Democrats’ health care overhaul will force it to close its doors by the end of the year.
The firm, nHealth, appears to be the first to claim that the new law has driven it out of business. “We don’t know what the rules are going to be, and, as a start-up, our investors need certainty,” nHealth CEO and President Paul Kitchen told POLITICO. “The law created so much uncertainty that is beyond our control.”
Last week, in a letter to the company’s 50 or so employees, Executive Vice President James Slabaugh said nHealth has stopped accepting new group customers and will terminate all business by Dec. 31.
“The uncertainties in the regulatory climate coupled with new demands imposed by national health care reforms have made it challenging to sustain the level of sales required to remain viable over the long run,” Slabaugh wrote.
The company’s finger-pointing — first reported by the newspaper Richmond BizSense — must be read with caution: For years, employers and health insurance brokers have struggled to keep pace with steeply rising health care costs.
Asked about nHealth’s decision to shut down, a White House aide said, “It’s difficult to comment on this case without fully evaluating the company in question.”
The blame game — whether health reform can be held responsible for the continuing woes of an already struggling system — will very likely become a familiar plotline as the health overhaul takes effect and political parties vie for control of the narrative.
President Barack Obama dives back into the fray Tuesday, traveling to a senior center in Wheaton, Md., for a national tele-town hall on health care.
NHealth opened for business about 2½ years ago and was named in October 2008 one of the “Greater Richmond Companies to Watch” by a local business group. Kitchen estimates the company has about 100 small-business contracts providing policies to “thousands” of subscribers.
NHealth specializes in high-deductible insurance plans, meant to cover larger medical emergencies, that are paired with health savings accounts, the tax-deductible accounts used to pay for medical expenses.
HSAs have grown dramatically since they were authorized in the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act. There were about 1 million enrollees in 2005. Now there are about 10 million, according to a May 2010 report from the industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans.
HSAs are a favorite of conservative health economists, who see the plans as a way to control costs by leaving spending decisions to individual consumers. Others have criticized the plans as discouraging cost-saving behavior such as preventive care.
And restaurants are not expanding in order to keep under the limits thus denying jobs.
Restaurants pinched by health reform bill
By: Milwaukee Bizjournals
National health care reform is expected to hit the restaurant industry particularly hard, as Milwaukee-area George Webb franchisee Tom Aldridge understands.
It may not have been part of his original agenda, but reform is prompting Aldridge to significantly alter his business plan.
Instead of continuing on a course to grow his George Webb franchise, Aldridge is expecting to sell two of his five restaurants — eliminating 25 employees in the process — to avoid having to provide health insurance for his workers at a pricey cost.
Under the health care bill passed by Congress in March, employers with more than an equivalent of 50 full-time employees are to provide health care coverage to all workers by 2014 or face a fine of $2,000 per uncovered employee.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Real Men of Genius
Thank you to reason.tv a fantastic site for this commercial. And no, I'm not biased because of the name...
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Helen Thomas wants Jews to move to Egypt?
Helen Thomas wants the Jews to leave Israel and go home. But home wasn't originally Poland and Germany, it was Egypt. So the Jews should go back to Egypt (I can only infer that, by that logic, Helen Thomas also thinks blacks should go back to Africa but she didn't specifically say it, I won't put those words into her mouth). Egypt originally owned Gaza and what is today Israel. Sooo, Helen Thomas angrily wants the Jews to stay where they are?
Monday, June 7, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Michigan Considers Law to Register Journalists
Original Post: Fox News
By: Jana Winter
A Michigan lawmaker wants to register reporters to ensure they’re credible and have “good moral character.”
State Sen. Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much as the state regulates hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets -- traditional, online and citizen generated -- and an even greater amount of misinformation.
“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.
He told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.
“We have to be able to get good information,” he said. “We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.”
Critics say the proposed law will stem press freedoms and is bound to be politicized, with disgruntled politicians going after reporters who don’t paint them in a positive light. They also say that adding members of the fourth estate to the list of government-regulated occupations is probably unconstitutional.
“It’s misguided and it’s never going to fly,” said Kelly McBride, media ethics expert at the Poynter Institute. She is currently involved in a project examining the transformation of the journalism profession.
The bill was introduced on May 11 and has been referred to the Michigan legislature’s Committee on Economic Development and Regulatory Reform.
“It’s a single sponsor bill. I think that says it all,” said Mike MacLaren, executive director of the Michigan Press Association.
“I’ve not talked to the senator about this but whenever you see a single sponsor it’s usually indicative of what others think of it, which is not much.”
According to the bill, reporters who register will have to pay an application and registration fee and provide a "Board of Michigan Registered Reporters" with proof of:
-- "Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”
-- Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.
-- Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.
-- Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.
-- Three or more writing samples.
Unregistered reporters would not be prevented from covering Michigan politics, and registering with the state would be voluntary.
Patterson conceded that he didn’t actually think his bill would be enacted into law. He said he’s winding down his two-decade political career and wants to provoke public discussion before he leaves office.
“I would argue the First Amendment feels otherwise,” said MacLaren. “He’s entitled to his thoughts. The First Amendment protects those as well.”
“What’s the definition of a reporter? I haven’t been able to find out? What’s a reporter? What’s a journalist?” Patterson said. “I thought you had to have a degree in journalism, but apparently not. I could retire and be a journalist.”
Patterson said he wants a central place where members of the public can go to find out about reporters’ credentials, background and experience.
“I’m talking about a central depository for information so someone can go find all that out,” Patterson said, comparing his idea to the vetting process for expert witnesses who testify in court.
He said he feels that there’s no way to tell who’s a legitimate journalist and who’s just rewriting other reporters’ reporting and twisting facts.
“He is right, the problem is “How do I know where I’m getting my news from?”” said McBride, who is working on a Ford Foundation project for the Poynter Institute that address the issue of the growing fifth estate -- non-professional bloggers, community reporters, and citizen journalists -- and the shrinking of the fourth estate, the traditional press.
But even though McBride agreed with Patterson’s concerns that people don’t know which news outlets to trust, she said the bill introducing government-registered reporters is just a bad idea.
Plus, she said, governments often try to control journalists through a credentialing process -- and these attempts are usually deemed unconstitutional.
“I think that his concern is a legitimate one,” McBride said, “But you’re not going to solve the problem by creating some kind of licensing system.”
EDITOR'S NOTE: An earlier version of this article stated incorrectly that the proposed bill would license reporters in Michigan. Sen. Patterson's proposed legislation calls for a voluntary system of registration with a government board.
By: Jana Winter
A Michigan lawmaker wants to register reporters to ensure they’re credible and have “good moral character.”
State Sen. Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much as the state regulates hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets -- traditional, online and citizen generated -- and an even greater amount of misinformation.
“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.
He told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.
“We have to be able to get good information,” he said. “We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.”
Critics say the proposed law will stem press freedoms and is bound to be politicized, with disgruntled politicians going after reporters who don’t paint them in a positive light. They also say that adding members of the fourth estate to the list of government-regulated occupations is probably unconstitutional.
“It’s misguided and it’s never going to fly,” said Kelly McBride, media ethics expert at the Poynter Institute. She is currently involved in a project examining the transformation of the journalism profession.
The bill was introduced on May 11 and has been referred to the Michigan legislature’s Committee on Economic Development and Regulatory Reform.
“It’s a single sponsor bill. I think that says it all,” said Mike MacLaren, executive director of the Michigan Press Association.
“I’ve not talked to the senator about this but whenever you see a single sponsor it’s usually indicative of what others think of it, which is not much.”
According to the bill, reporters who register will have to pay an application and registration fee and provide a "Board of Michigan Registered Reporters" with proof of:
-- "Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”
-- Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.
-- Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.
-- Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.
-- Three or more writing samples.
Unregistered reporters would not be prevented from covering Michigan politics, and registering with the state would be voluntary.
Patterson conceded that he didn’t actually think his bill would be enacted into law. He said he’s winding down his two-decade political career and wants to provoke public discussion before he leaves office.
“I would argue the First Amendment feels otherwise,” said MacLaren. “He’s entitled to his thoughts. The First Amendment protects those as well.”
“What’s the definition of a reporter? I haven’t been able to find out? What’s a reporter? What’s a journalist?” Patterson said. “I thought you had to have a degree in journalism, but apparently not. I could retire and be a journalist.”
Patterson said he wants a central place where members of the public can go to find out about reporters’ credentials, background and experience.
“I’m talking about a central depository for information so someone can go find all that out,” Patterson said, comparing his idea to the vetting process for expert witnesses who testify in court.
He said he feels that there’s no way to tell who’s a legitimate journalist and who’s just rewriting other reporters’ reporting and twisting facts.
“He is right, the problem is “How do I know where I’m getting my news from?”” said McBride, who is working on a Ford Foundation project for the Poynter Institute that address the issue of the growing fifth estate -- non-professional bloggers, community reporters, and citizen journalists -- and the shrinking of the fourth estate, the traditional press.
But even though McBride agreed with Patterson’s concerns that people don’t know which news outlets to trust, she said the bill introducing government-registered reporters is just a bad idea.
Plus, she said, governments often try to control journalists through a credentialing process -- and these attempts are usually deemed unconstitutional.
“I think that his concern is a legitimate one,” McBride said, “But you’re not going to solve the problem by creating some kind of licensing system.”
EDITOR'S NOTE: An earlier version of this article stated incorrectly that the proposed bill would license reporters in Michigan. Sen. Patterson's proposed legislation calls for a voluntary system of registration with a government board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)