This'n'That; August 27th[Paterson;Trust;Health/IRS;FluffyCareLies]

Whinney Ass! Double-Dealin' Dave's latest whine is that everyone's down on him cuz he's black! What a unique concept!! New York's gubner Paterson is forgetting that nearly every-thing he's done as gubner has been a collosal flop!! Black ain't got nuthin' ta do with it-HE'S AN INCOMPETENT BOOB!! Is Trust Important In Politics? Does the public need to have trust in a particular leader for that leader to be a competent one? I-for one-think that trust should be THE foremost trait of a politician's character!! Check this out; the printed audio from a video clip of then-candidate Fluffy obama:

Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I'm interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden, or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO. Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House.

Contrary to the aforementioned paragraph, here's some of the "ACORN-Style" thugs Fluffy obama is surrounding himself with:

• Anthony "Van" Jones, the Green Czar: An admitted, current Communist.
• John Holdren, the Science Czar: This is the guy who proposed compulsary sterilization and forced abortion to control population.
• Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar: This weinie proposed banning hunting and eating meat. Proposed that dogs have legal representation in court. Proposed a fairness doctrine for the Internet.
• Carol Browner, the Global Warming Czar: A member of Socialist International -a group promoting "global governance."
• Ezekiel Emmanual, HealthCare Czar: Proponent of the "Complete Lives System" which puts values on human lives based primarily on age.

I don't know about you, but..... Fluffy's appointment of every Marxist and Communist within shouting distance certainly promotes my trust in him...

N-O-T!!!!

Cash For Fridges? [Here we go again.... Can't anyone work anymore? When my fridge became a liability-in both function and effeciency, I went to Lowe's and bought one! I worked for the money and didn't rely on the gubmint to provide me a bonus for replacing it!] Beginning late this fall, the program authorizes rebates of $50 to $200 for purchases of high-efficiency household appliances. The money is part of the broader economic stimulus bill passed earlier this year. Program details will vary by state, and the Energy Dept. has set a deadline of Oct. 15 for states to file formal applications. The Energy Dept. expects the bulk of the $300 million to be awarded by the end of November. (Unlike the clunkers auto program, consumers won't have to trade in their old appliances.) "These rebates will help families make the transition to more efficient appliances, making purchases that will directly stimulate the economy," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement announcing the plan. Only appliances covered by the Energy Star seal will qualify. In 2008, about 55% of newly produced major household appliances met those standards, which are set by the Energy Dept. and Environmental Protection Agency.

DemocRATic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data (AP)One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as "obamacare."

• Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation.
• That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."
• Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner.
• The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."
• Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
• Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation, Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records?
• The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee....
• So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."
• Presumably inserting limits on information that can be disclosed -- and adding strict penalties on misuse of the information kept on file about hundreds of millions of Americans -- is at least as important as fretting about Facebook's privacy policy in Canada.)
• A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year.
• It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections.
• It's true that if the legislative branch chooses to create "affordability credits," it probably makes sense to ensure they're not abused.
• The goal of curbing fraud runs up against the goal of preserving individual privacy. If we're going to have such significant additional government intrusion into our health care system, we will have to draw the privacy line somewhere.
• This vignette should be reason to be skeptical of claims that a massive and complex bill must be enacted as rapidly as its backers would have you believe.

Update August 27 11 a.m: Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center says in e-mail: "We would oppose section 431(a) of the bill because it violates the intent of the Privacy Act which generally requires agencies to obtain information directly from individuals and not from other agencies." EPIC still hasn't updated their Web site to reflect this sentiment, but it's good to know that other folks have concerns too.

democRAT Lies On FluffyCare [As compiled by Ann Coulter writing at www.humanevents.com ]

(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.

• You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.
• That's why we need a third, fourth and 45th competing insurance company that will undercut them by offering better service at a lower price.
• Tiny little France and Germany have more competition among health insurers than the U.S. does right now. Amazingly, both of these socialist countries have less state regulation of health insurance than we do, and you can buy health insurance across regional lines -- unlike in the U.S., where a federal law allows states to ban interstate commerce in health insurance.
• U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they're a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)
• Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly.
• That's what single-payer health care is: "Single payer" means "single provider."
• It's the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it's screwed up because there's not enough government oversight (it's the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of "reform."
• You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden -- another illustration of the rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly "conservative" Democrats.

(2) National health care will "increase competition and keep insurance companies honest" -- as Fluffy obama has said.

Government-provided health care isn't a competitor; it's a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer.

Consumers may be able to "choose" whether they take the service -- at least at first -- but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It's like a new cable plan with a "yes" box, but no "no" box.

obama himself compared national health care to the post office -- immediately conjuring images of a highly efficient and consumer-friendly work force -- which, like so many consumer-friendly shops, is closed by 2 p.m. on Saturdays, all Sundays and every conceivable holiday.

But what most people don't know -- including the president, apparently -- with certain narrow exceptions, competing with the post office is prohibited by law. Expect the same with national health care. Liberals won't stop until they have total control. How else will they get you to pay for their sex-change operations?

(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are "villains."

• Obama denounced the insurance companies in last Sunday's New York Times, saying: "A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn't known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died." Well, yeah. That and the cancer.
• Assuming this is true -- which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care -- in a free market, such an insurance company couldn't stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor's shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.
• If only customers had a choice! But we don't because of government regulation of health insurance. Speaking of which, maybe if Mr. Gallstone's insurance company weren't required by law to cover early childhood development programs and sex-change operations, it wouldn't be forced to cut corners in the few areas not regulated by the government, such as cancer treatments for patients with gallstones.

(4) National health care will give Americans "basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable" -- as Der Fluffmeister claimed in his op/ed in the Times.

• You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, "I'm taking my business elsewhere."

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

• The only reason most "pre-existing" conditions aren't already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.
• The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have "reinsurance" policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.
• If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for "pre-existing" conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn -- unconceived -- children and health insurance even when you don't have a job.
• The vast majority of "pre-existing" conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be "covered" conditions under a free market in health insurance.

(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.

• Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it. (Hey, here's two-thirds of a syllogism!)
• Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, "The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with most Americans.
• So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs ... without ever denying a single medical treatment!
• For you newcomers to planet Earth, everything that does not exist in infinite supply is rationed.
• In a free society, people are allowed to make their own rationing choices. Some people get new computers every year; some every five years.
• Some White House employees get new computers and then vandalize them on the way out the door when their candidate loses. (These are the same people who will be making decisions about your health care.)
• Similarly, one person might say, "I want to live it up and spend freely now! No one lives forever." (That person is a Democrat.) And another might say, "I don't go to restaurants, I don't go to the theater, and I don't buy expensive designer clothes because I've decided to pour all my money into my health."
• Under national health care, you'll have no choice about how to ration your own health care. If your neighbor isn't entitled to a hip replacement, then neither are you.
• At least that's how the plan was explained to me by our next surgeon general, Dr. Conrad Murray.

(7) National health care will reduce costs.

• This claim comes from the same government that gave us the $500 hammer, the $1,200 toilet seat and postage stamps that increase in price every three weeks.
• The last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil industry.
• Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada -- presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau -- imposed price controls on oil. As night leads to day, price controls led to reduced oil production, which led to oil shortages, skyrocketing prices for gasoline, rationing schemes and long angry lines at gas stations.
• You may recall this era as "the Carter years."
• Then, the white knight Ronald Reagan became president and immediately deregulated oil prices. The magic of the free market -- aka the "profit motive" -- produced surges in oil exploration and development, causing prices to plummet. Prices collapsed and remained low for the next 20 years, helping to fuel the greatest economic expansion in our nation's history.
• You may recall this era as "the Reagan years."
• Freedom not only allows you to make your own rationing choices, but also produces vastly more products and services at cheap prices, so less rationing is necessary.

(8) National health care won't cover abortions.

• There are three certainties in life: (a) death, (b) taxes, and (C) no health care bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Fluffy obama could possibly fail to cover abortions.
• Despite being a thousand pages long, the health care bills passing through Congress are strikingly nonspecific.
• (Also, in a thousand pages, Democrats weren't able to squeeze in one paragraph on tort reform. Perhaps they were trying to save paper.)
• These are Trojan Horse bills. Of course, they don't include the words "abortion," "death panels" or "three-year waits for hip-replacement surgery." That proves nothing -- the bills set up unaccountable, unelected federal commissions to fill in the horrible details.
• Notably, the Democrats rejected an amendment to the bill that would specifically deny coverage for abortions.
• After the bill is passed, the Federal Health Commission will find that abortion is covered, pro-lifers will sue, and a court will say it's within the regulatory authority of the health commission to require coverage for abortions.
• Then we'll watch a parade of senators and congressmen indignantly announcing, "Well, I'm pro-life, and if I had had any idea this bill would cover abortions, I never would have voted for it!"
• No wonder Democrats want to remind us that they can't be trusted with foreign policy.
• They want us to forget that they can't be trusted with domestic policy.

Til Nex'Time....