Archive for October, 2013

Fellow Americans we are watching the expedited erosion of our rights. bill-of-rights  We watched earlier this year as less than credible warrants were pushed through as several intrusions on the Associated Press (AP) and on a Fox News reporter James Rosen.  There was some media mention/noise, but like all good media outlets, they fell back in with the party-line message from this Administration.

The latest weak-ass warrant served August 6, 2013 on a Washington Times reporter, via a search warrant made on her husband for suspected “unregistered firearms”.  Of course the gestapo technique used by the Homeland Security officials included picking-up his wife’s notes and other files that she was making on a news investigative story she was writing.

So what was the reporter working on that had the Homeland Security so interested as to sideways access her life?  Well,  it seems she’d been doing some investigation of the… wait.. wait for it… the Homeland Security.   Yep, the very people that had deprived her of her Liberty and her First Amendment rights;  the very agency who is supposed to protect us from “Terrorists”.

Homeland SecurityIn a predawn raid her family home, reporter Audrey Hudson said the investigators, including an agent for Homeland’s Coast Guard service, took private notes and copies of government documents that she had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.  Of the documents taken by these “Federal Agents” none of them were disclosed to Ms Hudson.   What was in the 5 files that concerned the Agency?

The warrant referenced no specific permission to seize reporting notes or files per the Washington Times.  The Times also said it is preparing legal action for unwarranted intrusion on the First Amendment and serious violations of Audrey Hudson’s Fourth Amendment rights as well.

Interestingly, Hudson’s husband has had no charges filed against him nearly three months later.  What’s that all about?  Oh yea- that’s not what they were looking for at that time.

3%20monkeysWhere’s the rest of the media on this?  SILENT.

As Americans, we can’t just stand idle while a new generation of leadership is taking advantage of the citizenry right in front of our faces.  Call Congress, post on Facebook about this case and others like it.

What’s next?  They coming for our blogs, our Facebook pages that don’t agree with them?  Our websites?   They coming after anything we have or say if we don’t agree with them?  Your thoughts?



Read Full Post »

In an October 23, 2013 CBS article they explain;

“…Incredibly misleading for people that are trying to get a sense of what they’re paying.” said Industry Analyst, Jonathan Wu.  Wu points to how the website lumps people only into two broad categories: “49 or under” and “50 or older.”  Prices for everyone in the 49-or-under group are based on what a 27-year-old would pay. In the 50-or-older group, prices are based on what a 50-year-old would pay.

CBS ran the numbers for older Americans and found a huge difference of what was represented and what actually would be the price.  For example 62-year-old in Charlotte looking for the same basic plan would get a price estimate on the government website of $394. The actual price is $634.

Running the numbers for a 48-year-old in Charlotte, N.C., according to HealthCare.gov, she would pay $231 a month, but the actual plan on Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina’s website costs $360, more than 50 percent higher.  The difference: Blue Cross and Blue Shield requests your birthday before providing more accurate estimates.

What would happen to a company that represented it’s pricing this way?  They would inevitably be brought up on deceptive advertising at least and possibly fraud if an older or mentally challenged individual had difficulty in actually discerning the difference as they proceeded with purchase.

The reality of an average price would take the population 50 through 90’s and average theObama-and-Sebelius age of the population in that sample, most likely finding it skewing more toward 65 than 50.  Same with under 49, probably finding the average around 35.  In any case, why can’t they just say, born in this “year” or give the actual price, this is not beyond website technology, well for a private company anyway.

The Government should not be exempt from the wide array of Consumer Protection laws and the very administration created our very own Consumer Czar, Elizabeth Warren.  Where is she in all of this?

“Industry executives CBS News spoke with literally could not believe the government is providing these estimates, which they said were useless and could easily mislead consumers,”  NBC News, Jan Crawford said.

“They also say that the website repeatedly states the actual prices could be lower – but it makes no mention that they could be higher,” she added.  She has already called the website a “complete disaster,” and the Obamacare rollout a “complete failure.” On Friday, Crawford focused on the widely-acknowledged privacy risks surrounding the system, but adding that “the glitches have, in fact, made the website unusable for most.”

Read Full Post »

In our article written last year October 6, 2012, titled “Tax me again an again” , we wrote about the current state of the United States Tax system and where the money was going.   One particular part was the dire situation relating to

File:GAO Slide.png

where the money was going and the trend of these new and continually growing entitlements.

We proposed several solutions at that time, of course nothing has happened in one year.

1) Get people back to work, 2) Stop corporate bail out and incentives, 3) Everyone should pay taxes, 4) Reduce our spending in ALL categories, 5) Get our entitlements under control.

Ok, people will say, hey we reduced our spending that’s what Sequestration was all about… er, ah, well actually no.  Sequestrations was the measly reduction of $85 Billion out of projected $185Billion increase in next years budget.  It’s not actually cutting any spending, it’s cutting NOT spending as much the next year.   This is cutting Washington style, it’s taking a slice off the top of expected increase in spending.  So why all the noise?

Ok what about taxes, well taxes were raised by repeal of top earner Bush Tax Cuts.   We still have a problem with half the population no paying any “Federal Income Taxes”.  Here’s a video that describes this.

Well, well, well, maybe I was wrong, here’s where even more people are going to get taxed.  Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare).   Yep, I said it, Taxed.  How you say?  Well first everyone that does already have health insurance will be taxed 3.8% on their purchase of health insurance.  What?  Taxed on already buying health insurance?  Yep… look for it in your next years bill from your insurance carrier, they are to collect

a) health insurer tax – offsets expenses related to premium subsidies 2.3%
b) transitional reinsurance contribution program tax – helps cover costs for high risk individuals in non group market. 1.5%

obamacare-exchangesYes, that’s right, individually if you buy healthcare you will be taxed on top of what you buy.  Forget that many insurance plans are rising at 20, 30 or more percent year on year because of “Affordable” Health Care Act.  Ugh.. BUT it’s not over.   So if you don’t have health care, you must buy it or pay a penalty, er I mean tax.  So let’s say you just don’t want health insurance, you can pay $95 penalty or 1% of your income in 2014.  That penalty will rise to $325 or 2% of income in 2015 and to $695 or 2.5% of income in 2016.   Ok, that’s interesting.  What if I just buy the health insurance then.  Well if you make less than $11,490 a year you can get 60% subsidy on your purchase.  But if you make say just a bit more, say $15,000 a year you have to pay the penalty or buy the insurance.  What does it cost for say a 50 year old only making $15,000 a year.  Well the cheapest insurance (in California’s exchange) is $329 a month.  That’s $3,948 or 26% of your income.  Plus a 3.8% tax on top or another $150 a year.  So not too affordable to someone between say the $15,000 to $45,000 (8.7% of income) a year income, so what is it they will likely do?  Pay the penalty.. So much for getting everyone on Health Care.    But don’t worry  we were all supposed to be paying $2,500 a year less in health care.  So $3,948 should actually have been $1,448), still nearly 10% of income at $15,000 a year, but possible.  Who promised it would be less?

ObamaCareOk, so there is only one thing in the Law that appeared to have been in need of intervention, pre-existing condition.  So did we need a 1,600 page government program to enact a law that say insurance companies can’t discriminate against pre-existing condition? Of course not, yes rates would go up to cover those with pre-existing condition, but certainly not to the increases we are seeing with all the affects this law has placed on the insurance carriers and the public.  Well then other say, we want to get everyone health care and our existing system is one of the worst in the world.  Well everyone has by law access to treatment, it’s not health care, it’s treatment.  No one can be denied care if they go for treatment.  Most counties across the country have medical centers which are set up to handle the very poor.  Yes, it costs money and we pay for it already in exiting insurance premiums and existing taxes.  Oh but without health care they won’t get the best treatment, really?

A recent “Investor’s Business Daily” article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization. Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65% England 46% Canada 42% Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93% England 15% Canada 43% Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90% England 15% Canada 43% Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77% England 40% Canada 43% Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71 England 14 Canada 18 Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in “excellent health”: U.S. 12% England 2% Canada 6% And now for the last statistic: National Health Insurance? U.S. NO England YES Canada YES.

On our Republic United You Tube Channel, our best post “No Obamacare” has been viewed by 1.6 Million+ people.  Rating Thumbs Up 4,183 and Thumbs Down 414, while this isn’t scientific, it may say something.  Check it out, rate it and comment.

So why such a mess?   Let’s just say maybe, just maybe it has to do with the bureaucrats in charge in the Obama Administration.

Let’s look at the percentage of past president’s cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.  You know what the private business sector is; a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.

T. Roosevelt… 38%, Taft… 40%, Wilson… 52%, Harding… 49%, Coolidge…48%, Hoover… 42%, F. Roosevelt… 50%, Truman…50%, Eisenhower…57%, Kennedy…30%,  Johnson…47%, Nixon…53%, Ford…42%, Carter…32%, Reagan…56%, GH Bush…51%, Clinton…39%, GW Bush…55%, Obama…8%.

This may help explain a lot, only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!  And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business?  They’ve spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as “community organizers.”

Read Full Post »