Massive PR Blitz Coming for Obamacare:Three Months of Links Americans Need to Read

Posted on by

by Conservative Generation for the Left Coast Rebel

(Editor's note: C-Gen has been busy gathering links on the insidious 2,000+ page 'health care reform' bill that passed in March. The following is an excellent 'link-fest' and resource perhaps on the case for repeal. Please email this, tweet it and make it go viral.)

Two weeks before the House  voted and passed Obama’s massive health care overhaul, Nancy  Pelosi stepped  to the microphone  and urged voters to support the bill.  She exclaimed with conviction  that,

“we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is  in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

  It is certainly true that combing through thousands of pages of legislation  in only a matter of days is difficult to properly analyze.  Although  prudence required thorough thought and examination to such complex,  sweeping legislation, our Democrat controlled congress steam rolled  a partisan vote to push the health care legislation into law.   It has been nearly three months after the legislation was passed and therefore by Nancy Pelosi’s own admission,   we should have a very good idea “what is in it.”

With the elections coming in  November, Obama and the Democrats are planning a massive  PR campaign to  tout all the wonderful benefits  of the recently passed health care legislation.  Despite the fact  that the administration has failed to connect with voters for  over  a year now, Obama  is confident, because this  time they are armed with real tangible benefits resulting from the  legislation.   These benefits are being implemented as we speak, ahead of schedule.

The two big benefits that  Democrats  are championing are:

* Children   as old as 26 must be covered under their parents

* A   whopping $250 check to Medicare recipients for drug benefits.

Politics is not without irony -  the Republicans   tried the very same thing  the spring before they were voted out of office in 2008.

There is only one major flaw  to their PR plans; they passed a lousy bill.  The last time the  Obama administration decided to do a PR campaign for poor legislation,  Obama’s stimulus was attacked because they couldn’t hide the padding  of the jobs “saved and created” on their website.  The immutable  truth is that good legislation needs no PR.

Health Care PR is  just a sign of disconnect regarding what they hoped their bill would  do and what their bill actually does.  So, President Obama can  talk up a $250 rebate check all he wants, the public doesn’t have  to look too far to see the negatives, but just in case they do, below  is a Instapundit- inspired taste of what has been published in the media  on the Health Care bill passed in March.

Here is how great the Health care bill is for consumers:

* Patients   confused about the new health care law

* Didn’t   anyone in congress notice that there was already a doctor shortage?

* Get   ready for the Medicare Advantage cuts

* Large   companies encouraged by health care  law to drop employer coverage

* One   million low-income employees to get booted from their plans

* Government   staffers kicked off their health care plans

* You   will need a prescription to buy Tylenol on your FSA

Here is how great the Health care bill is for health care providers:

* Plans   for 24 new physician-owned hospitals canceled

* Doctors   may be forced to drop Medicare patients, because  the Democrats  dropped the doctor fix from health care reform for political purposes and   now they’ve missed the deadline to stave off huge draconian Medicare  reimbursement cuts 10 days ago.   Meanwhile, congress   went on vacation.

* In fact, Texas  doctors are  already dropping Medicare

* Reimbursements   to hospitals that treat the uninsured will get government reimbursement  rates cut

How about how wonderful the health care  law is for companies:

* AT&T   books a billion in health care loses

* $970   million loss to Verizon

* Lockheed   and Boeing take $250 million combined

* John   Deere takes $150 million loss

* Health   care costs Caterpillar $100 million

* 3M   has $90 million hit

* PPG   records $85 million

* AK   Steele takes $30 Million loss

* $20   million from Valero

* Alcoa   takes hit as well

* Democrat   Congressman Waxman cancels his health care witch hunt when he finally realized that the  health care legislation really does hurt businesses

* Drug   maker Eli Lilly will lose $950 million to $1.1 billion in revenue in next two years

* Forces   insurance company out of business

* Medical   device makers to cut employees

* Companies   to drown in health care overhaul tax paperwork, literally

Of course the bill is great for small businesses:

* Fees   on companies with 50 or more employees

* Health   Care tanning tax decimates small tanning shops that 28 million Americans   visit

* Avalanche   of paperwork to hit small businesses too

* Obamacare  is so great for small businesses that they are suing to repeal the law

The States are ecstatic about all the new health care obligations:

* Law   takes away Medicaid rebate,  $50 million in first year from California

* Though downplayed by  Democrats, the  law shifts costs  of Medicaid onto the States.   Last time I checked, the States were broke and even “mild” increases  are devastating.  In   fact, the States can’t afford their Medicaid obligations that they  currently have let alone an increase. 

* CT   left out of a Federal Medicare Windfall boondoggle

The law was written flawlessly!:

* The moment the bill was  passed, congress  had to  pass a bill to fix it! 

* Law   didn’t actually cover children as the Democrats touted

* Insurance   companies confused  over how to account for medical costs in new legislation

* Bill   allows for insurance companies to rapidly raise rates

Democrats broke  nearly every promise made on the health care bill:

* Obama’s  health  care legislation would strengthen Medicare: Chief  Actuary for  Health and Human Services says it’s a lie.

* If  you like your  plan, you can keep your plan:  Companies  look to  kick employees off their health care plans, law  to strip a  million low-income insured off their plans this September, government   staffers kicked off their health care plans

* Health   care will cost under a trillion over the last 6 years of the 10 year  projection: CBO  says that  it will cost over a trillion

* Health care  legislation  will lower budget deficits in the ten year window: CBO   says, that isn’t true

* No   federal dollars will be used to fund abortions: Federal   dollars will be going to fund abortions

Meanwhile, all the  conservative  “disinformation” proved true:

How many times did  the left whine  about all the “disinformation”  on health care?  Yet after the health care bill was passed, the  left came out in true gotcha-style to announce that “yes” it was  all true.

* NY   Times Paul Krugman says that death panels  will save us lots of money

* NY   Times David Leonhardt admits that health care plan  was primarily to promote socialism

News from MA’s health  care system:

The bill passed in congress  was modeled after MA’s health care system.  So what news have  we seen from the future of our health care overhaul?

* Mass   Companies taking losses

* State   Treasurer predicts new health care law will wipe out the economy in  four years

* MA   health care mandate hurts low-income families

Most importantly, every single  link above was from just the last three months since the law passed.   The democrats will have far bigger problems once people start reading  about how they need health   insurance to avoid jail time  and that the term health care subsidy, does not mean free, leaving  many forced  to buy health insurance that they still can’t afford.

  

save_health_care.jpg1_

If we can agree on just one thing this November, may it be a candidate's pledge to repeal.

Discussion at Memeorandum.

Electronic Diagram

Posted on by

Hi

I have one willding Machine Type :SL210 S.N 03E78886 and i need the electronic diagram because i have problem and i can found with out this diagram can please to help me

It’s… It’s… A Riddle!

Posted on by

UPDATE:  SOLVED by Frank at 12:19 CDT

Wakey wakey!  I know you’re there, ready to play.  Get those neurons fired up – hup two three four!

Your riddle today is an event.  It’s something you know about.  We talk about it all the time.  Here are your clues:

Today’s event is not one, specific time.

This event causes a structure, which is temporary.

The first time this event was detected scientifically was in 1971, but it’s believed to be part of an 1859 event.

When this event occurs, it is magnificent.

The event causes gorgeous after-effects.

The event itself is little understood.

It is associated with speed and power.

It happens everywhere, all the time.

We love it, but it causes us problems.

Okay, that should do it.  I’m presenting an event a little differently today, but that won’t cause you any problems.  I don’t expect this riddle to be up long, but you should have some fun with it.  I’m lurking in the comments, as usual.

No spiders today, Trudy

AC Generator Rotor

Posted on by

hi gents

can some one please help me?

its caterpillar generator Model#SR4 400kva, 460v, 60hz. the problem started six months ago when the rotating rectifier was damaged, after about 2months there was no output from the generator and the problem was the exciter stator coil was open,

Leaded Free Cutting Steels

Posted on by

Dear sirs,

I'd like to know about casting of leaded free cutting steels(e.g. 12L15 steel grade).

1.Is it possible to continuous casting of this steel grade?

2.Is Pb(Lead) added as shot or wire?

3.Is pb added to ladle or tundish or mould?

A foxy Caturday | Bad Astronomy

Posted on by

It’s Caturday! Which, regular readers know, I have expanded here at the BABlog to include all creatures great and small. So check out this cutie pie:

This is a young fox that lives across the street from my in-laws’ house. We were over there the other day, and I had to leave early (to come home to write, somewhat ironically). But my wife and daughter saw a fox running around the neighborhood, and saw it go into a neighbor’s yard. There were people standing around looking, so they joined them… and what they found were a pair of young kits poking around. They obviously had a lair there.

My brother-in-law took this picture, and several others. The foxes are apparently pretty tame, but I hope people still keep their distance. Also, my B-i-L has had to deal with finding mostly-eaten corpses of various prey in his yard, too. Nice. We’re starting to get pretty good at identifying bones…


Is That Food Expired or Safe to Eat?

Posted on by

Some experts believe that manufacturers are much too cautious when it comes to devising best-by dates for certain foods. Determining shelf life typically involves using professional testers and instrument data, but some believe that using consumer rejection data would also help to better pinpoint a

How Will the Gulf Oil Spill Affect Energy Policy?

Posted on by

Current predictions put oil from the Gulf in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in a few more weeks. The spill happened just a few weeks after the U.S. announced its intention to increase offshore drilling of domestic reserves. Will the Gulf oil spill become the world's most costly disaster in terms o

Cable Copper Thickness

Posted on by

I want to know how the thickness of a 60 HP slip ring induction motor cabling for overhead crane from 1.5MVA transformer is done. What are the parameter to be considered, i have a slight idea that we should consider short circuit current. Please explain with formulae.

Treacherous Texting on the Road

Posted on by

In many small towns, cities, and states in the U.S., it's now against the law to text while you drive — the reason being that it distracts a driver's attention from the road. Yep, as dangerous as driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, as the stats say. But it still happens day in

Are science journalists being overly criticised? | Not Exactly Rocket Science

Posted on by

Muzzled_watchdogIn the UK, there is no more famous scourge of bad science journalism than Ben Goldacre, author of the Guardian’s well-named Bad Science column. In last week’s column, Goldacre published a critique of an inaccuracy-laden piece in the Observer, penned by health correspondent Denis Campbell. This triggered a sequence of ripostes including an opinion piece from the Independent’s health editor Jeremy Laurence criticising Goldacre, a response from Goldacre criticising Laurance, and a defence of Laurance from Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre.

I have already commented on Laurance’s frankly appalling view of what journalism is, and I will leave that aside for now. Both he and Fox essentially argue that a critical overview of science journalism is necessary but both advocate a softly-softly approach that doesn’t get under anyone’s skin too much.

Laurence said, “While raging rightly at the scientific illiteracy of the media, [Goldacre] might reflect when naming young, eager reporters starting out on their careers that most don’t enjoy, as he does, the luxury of time.” Fox chimed in with “Ben was well within his rights to do his weekly column on the weaknesses in the Observer report on Omega 3 but he would not have prompted this backlash if he had done it in a different style”, and elsewhere, “I think it’s about the tone of Ben’s particular brand of critique.”

I will summarise these arguments: we like watchdogs, but we’d prefer it if they had no bite.

Both mention the difficult, high-pressure environment of the modern newsroom, which Fox refers to as “mitigating circumstances”. I disagree but there is certainly a grain of truth here about the life of a journalist. I have argued before that critics of journalism would do well to better understand such day-to-day routines, filled as they are with deadlines, editor-wrangling, dictats about what stories to cover, and many people to interview. In Flat Earth News, Nick Davies derides the culture of intense pressure for more stories in less time with less fact-checking, while simultaneously empathising with young journalists who are ground down by it.

You can understand why people who work in that environment might get a little narked with critics, especially when certain subtleties of the profession are commonly missed (hint: the journalist didn’t write the headline). This isn’t helped by the typically ferocious nature of internet criticism. It’s easy to rain vitriol on a name on a webpage over a wrong headline or a dodgy stat, while forgetting that behind the name is a real people with a real livelihoods. So I empathise with science journalists who feel that their backs are up against the wall, or who feel that they are sometimes criticised unfairly.

But none of this means that people shouldn’t be criticised if they screw up or that during such criticisms, they should be given an easy ride.

The high-pressure nature of the job merely explains some of the mistakes that are made – they don’t excuse them. At the most basic level, as an employee of a workplace, you are contracted to do a job, with all the stress and pressure that entails. If you can’t cope with that and fulfil your obligations, then you’re in the wrong job. This is particularly important in science and health journalism, because the costs of error can be very substantial.

Then there’s the old canard that the critics have it easy. Laurance accuses Goldacre of having “the luxury of time” while Fox contrasts the day of a “jobbing journalist” to the “luxury of a columnist like Ben who gets to lay bare the flaws in those stories once a week”. That’s absolute rubbish. I can’t speak for Ben but it’s worth noting that his column is written on top of his activities as a full-time doctor. I can, however, speak for myself. In the upcoming week, I will be writing 6 lengthy news pieces for this blog and a 1,500-word feature for the Times, outside of my day job in my spare time. In fact, writing this piece is eating into that time. The critic’s schedule is no less hectic and indeed part of the reason that bad science journalism is such an irritation is that correcting it soaks up time!

During my day job, I have to answer enquiries from people who have been misled by an inaccurate headline. I respond to sensationalist coverage and provide a more measured take on things. I also provide some of the quotes that work into those news pieces, often dropping all my other work to meet a reporter’s deadline – furiously reading the relevant paper (if it’s provided, otherwise, hunting it), second-guessing the angle of the story, drafting a response, and getting it signed off. That high-pressure news environment turns my office into a high-pressure working environment.

And really, regardless of how intense the schedule of a journalist is, that defence really starts falling apart when you consider that many people cope with it admirably. You’ll note that some reporters hardly ever seem to draw the wrath of critical bloggers. Why? Is it because they’re part of some secret club? Do they know where the off switch is? No – it’s because they’re simply better at what they do. They’re more careful. They do their homework. They check their facts. And most importantly of all (because we’re all human) if they do make mistakes, they take it on the chin and engage with their critics (check out that last link for my own personal fiasco and its swift resolution).

Earlier yesterday, Petra Boynton asked for resources to help journalists avoid making common mistakes and I answered that the only things people really need are humility, a willingness to learn, and time. We’ve talked about time already; the other two are just as important because they ensure that if you make mistakes, you’ll make them only once, and that you maintain accountability and professionalism.

It’s the lack of such accountability that fuels much of the frustration with bad science journalism. In fact, those who repeatedly do the worst job have a habit of not holding themselves to account. Goldacre’s attempts to track the source of the article that started all of this were protracted and difficult. The article in question has since disappeared from the Guardian website with no correction or explanation, even though the Code of Conduct from the National Union of Journalists calls for journalists to do “her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies”. Instead, we get one piece in another national newspaper and one blog post criticising Goldacre for his tone.

This is not the type of reaction that instils confidence in a softly-softly approach.

The bottom line is that if people like Laurance and Fox feel that the “self-appointed critics” of science journalism are being too harsh, there must be some evidence that a more cordial tone would actually yield dividends (after all, scientists like evidence). To my knowledge, those data are sorely lacking.

Of course, most of this piece has been focused on bad science journalism and we must be careful to avoid confirmation bias. As I’ve argued repeatedly, there is plenty of good science journalism out there that often gets lost amid the venom triggered by the worst exemplars. I’m currently judging the ABSW Science Writer Awards and it’s a joy; there is no shortage of truly excellent science journalism of the sort that takes specialist skills (and a lot of time) to go out and find.

The critic who thinks that all journalists are rubbish is a straw man, but we could certainly do more to collectively highlight good science journalism (in this, I actually agree with Fox). It would serve to show the world what the craft actually looks like when done well, and it would hopefully encourage the best practitioners, who might otherwise think that their entire profession is being condemned despite their high-quality efforts. This will contribute towards raising overall standards just as much as debunking the worst articles. Social media is excellent for this and there is clearly a culture developing on Twitter where science journalists who do excellent work get praised for it. That can only be encouraged.

But in the meantime, the watchdogs are still needed. Their bites and barks may be unpleasant, but so are the consequences of the errors that draw their attention. In the end, the best way to avoid such criticisms is to give people as little as possible to criticise.

UPDATE: Martin Robbins at the Lay Scientist has an angrier take ;-)

Image by Joshua Sherurcij


Twitter.jpg Facebook.jpg Feed.jpg Book.jpg

The Associated Press finally gets it right on Rand Paul – he’s a "libertarian-conservative"

Posted on by

From Eric Dondero:

We've been using the term "libertarian-conservative," for years here at Libertarian Republican. We didn't invent the term, but we've certainly been at the forefront of its use and its popularization.

Now finally, a media outlet - the Associated Press no less - has caught on. In an article by Charles Babington, "Tea party shaping Republican Party, fall faceoffs," the term "libertarian-conservative," is used to describe Rand Paul.

The article leads off talking of Nikki Haley's stunner in South Carolina: "a tea party surge and Sarah Palin's endorsement propelled her to an easy first-place finish." It then goes on to talk of "tea party favorite Sharron Angle," Sharron Angle. Continuing:

The movement had another victory on Tuesday. In Maine, a tea party favorite, Waterville Mayor Paul LePage, won the GOP nomination for governor.

These events follow the stunning rejection of three-term Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah in a GOP convention, libertarian-conservative Rand Paul's victory over a Republican establishment favorite in Kentucky's Senate primary and Gov. Charlie Crist's forced withdrawal from Florida's GOP Senate primary.

Paul's description in the liberal media has had numerous incarnations. He's been called a Big 'L' Libertarian, which is inaccurate cause he is not a member of the Libertarian Party. He's not a mainline "Conservative," either, given his views on medicinal use of marijuana, casinos and such. Paul is right at the apex of the libertarian and conservative movements; a perfect Tea Partier.

The AP finally got it right. Let's hope other liberal media will now catch on.

Police Arrest Those That Video Tape Them: Is it a privacy issue or CYA?

Posted on by

By The Right Guy

If there's one thing I could say about myself it is that I am anti-authoritarian, which means I am pro-liberty or libertarian. This belief transcends political parties or religion and remains my prime mover if you will, that people should be free.

Ayn Rand said it well in this statement:

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

She also said

"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave".  Strong words from an articulate woman.

When it comes to a philosophy that summarizes this in a way to live, Thomas Jefferson said it thusly:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Yesterday I received a message through chat from a friend of this blog and myself, Hector Portillo. Hector has a blog, The Electric Eye. Hector was one of my first readers and has engaged me in very meaningful conversation that has had a profound effect on some of my ideas. He's a very intelligent young man and we keep in touch as they say. Anyway, Hector sent me this link, Are cameras the new guns? from Gizmodo. Probably knowing how pro-second amendment and individual rights oriented I am,  he sent this to me for comment.

In the United States, most states are what they call single party consent states. Usually this means that if I am involved with a conversation or interaction, I can record it without the other members consent. In 12 states, the consent must be from all members involved in the conversation.

After reading the article, I have come to the conclusion that some police in all party consent states have come up with the bright idea of using this law to cover their asses. This is what happened in one case:

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law...

Wow. And the story Continues:

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.

Interesting. There have been incidents, according to this article, where police have been willingly videotaped without explicit consent and did not interdict or prosecute the videographer, such as when the police are doing something positive, heroic, etc. Do news people get releases from police? I don't know, but I bet not.

What makes these cases interesting is that they do rely on law that is clear and can be used to justify their actions. The question of privacy is a valid one, but I haven't seen the police exercise such concerns with the cameras in their cars, speeding and red light cameras, and certain municipalities that have installed cameras to monitor the public, including police, as in New York City and Chicago. In all these cases the police seem to go along with the program.

What seems res ipsa loquitur about this is that their actions are self-serving. We have seen many cases where police brutality has been uncovered with video and if it were not for the video, such abuse would have gone unpunished. It's an interesting juxtaposition of rights here, and if I had to take a stand, it would have to be on the side of the public. The police work for the government and as such an agent thereof with powers that extend beyond the average citizen, come under a higher level of scrutiny and a set of standards.  An individual in society should be able to use any means to document interactions with these agents of the government as a protection of their rights. I might have a slight difference of opinion if police were against red light and speeding cameras, as well as cameras in public. They are not. They are also not against cameras in their own cars, which we have seen malfunction at certain times. What I would like to see happen is the thin blue line go away. This fortress mentality has not served police well and this type of enforcement we see here does not serve them well either. They seem to forget they serve us. Since when does the servant become our master? Let me know what you think.

Thank you for reading this blog.