Monday, March 29, 2010
Well, Folks, we seem to have been here before... T.R. Progressive Movement.
http://www.academicamerican.com/progressive/topics/progressive.html
The Progressive Era: The Great Age of Reform
Copyright © 2010, Henry J. Sage
Overview. H.W. Brands, a widely respected historian, formerly at Texas A&M University and now at the University of Texas, wrote The Reckless Decade: America in the 1890s in 1995. The decade of the 1890s as filled with tensions and problems that cried out for resolution. In the last section we discussed the exploitation of people and resources and suggested that if actions had not been taken to alleviate the more glaring injustices in American society, the nation might have been headed for rebellion. Indeed, the conflict we described as “the war between capital and labor” was filled with bloody violence and extensive property damage, a situation that continued well into the 20th century.
By 1900 America was a tinderbox. Cities were crowded with millions of poor laborers, working conditions were appalling. From the local level to the highest institutions in the land corruption darkened politics. Something had to be done, and the progressive movement was the nation’s response. Although the progressive reformers did not fix everything, little escaped their attention. Since the political powers were unwilling or unable to address the rapid economic and social changes brought about by the industrial revolution in America, the progressive movement grew outside government and eventually forced government to take stands and deal with the growing problems.
The year 1896 marks the approximate beginning of the Progressive Era, and reform peaked during the period before America’s entry into World War I in 1917. But in a larger sense, the reform impulse in America was present even in colonial times, and it continued into the modern era. Today few Americans would claim that this country provides a level playing field for all citizens and workers, or that our political system is free from corruption of one sort or another. Thus the progressive beat goes on.
AND WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html
In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot.
If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.
They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.
I put more of this on FaceBook last week: Where the fun never ends...
http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?ref=profile&id=100000525504244
The Progressive Era: The Great Age of Reform
Copyright © 2010, Henry J. Sage
Overview. H.W. Brands, a widely respected historian, formerly at Texas A&M University and now at the University of Texas, wrote The Reckless Decade: America in the 1890s in 1995. The decade of the 1890s as filled with tensions and problems that cried out for resolution. In the last section we discussed the exploitation of people and resources and suggested that if actions had not been taken to alleviate the more glaring injustices in American society, the nation might have been headed for rebellion. Indeed, the conflict we described as “the war between capital and labor” was filled with bloody violence and extensive property damage, a situation that continued well into the 20th century.
By 1900 America was a tinderbox. Cities were crowded with millions of poor laborers, working conditions were appalling. From the local level to the highest institutions in the land corruption darkened politics. Something had to be done, and the progressive movement was the nation’s response. Although the progressive reformers did not fix everything, little escaped their attention. Since the political powers were unwilling or unable to address the rapid economic and social changes brought about by the industrial revolution in America, the progressive movement grew outside government and eventually forced government to take stands and deal with the growing problems.
The year 1896 marks the approximate beginning of the Progressive Era, and reform peaked during the period before America’s entry into World War I in 1917. But in a larger sense, the reform impulse in America was present even in colonial times, and it continued into the modern era. Today few Americans would claim that this country provides a level playing field for all citizens and workers, or that our political system is free from corruption of one sort or another. Thus the progressive beat goes on.
AND WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html
In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot.
If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.
They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.
I put more of this on FaceBook last week: Where the fun never ends...
http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?ref=profile&id=100000525504244
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
It is Friday, time for another hairy dog tale... thanks Salen for this one!
A man feared his wife wasn't hearing as well as she used to and he
thought she might need a hearing aid.
Not quite sure how to approach her, he called the family doctor to
discuss the problem. The Doctor told him there is a simple informal
test the husband could perform to give the doctor a better idea about
her hearing loss.
"Here's what you do," said the Doctor, "stand about 40 feet away from
her, and innormal conversational speaking tone see if she hears you.
If not, go to 30 feet, then 20 feet, and so on until you get a
response."
That evening, the wife is in the kitchen cooking dinner, and he was in
the den. He says to himself, "I'm about 40 feet away, let's see what
happens." Then in a normal tone he asks, 'Honey, what's for dinner?"
No response.
So the husband moves closer to the kitchen, about 30 feet from his
wife and repeats, "Honey, what's for dinner?"
Still no response.
Next he moves into the dining room where he is about 20 feet from his
wife and asks, "Honey, what's for dinner?"
Again, he gets no response.
So, he walks up to the kitchen door, about 10 feet away. "Honey,
what's for dinner?"
Again there is no response.
So he walks right up behind her.
"Honey, what's for dinner?"
(I just love this...)
"Ralph, for the FIFTH time, CHICKEN!"
thought she might need a hearing aid.
Not quite sure how to approach her, he called the family doctor to
discuss the problem. The Doctor told him there is a simple informal
test the husband could perform to give the doctor a better idea about
her hearing loss.
"Here's what you do," said the Doctor, "stand about 40 feet away from
her, and innormal conversational speaking tone see if she hears you.
If not, go to 30 feet, then 20 feet, and so on until you get a
response."
That evening, the wife is in the kitchen cooking dinner, and he was in
the den. He says to himself, "I'm about 40 feet away, let's see what
happens." Then in a normal tone he asks, 'Honey, what's for dinner?"
No response.
So the husband moves closer to the kitchen, about 30 feet from his
wife and repeats, "Honey, what's for dinner?"
Still no response.
Next he moves into the dining room where he is about 20 feet from his
wife and asks, "Honey, what's for dinner?"
Again, he gets no response.
So, he walks up to the kitchen door, about 10 feet away. "Honey,
what's for dinner?"
Again there is no response.
So he walks right up behind her.
"Honey, what's for dinner?"
(I just love this...)
"Ralph, for the FIFTH time, CHICKEN!"
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Have seen the Smear by George on Bill ... but have you heard Lily Allen's song dedicated to W, "you're just some racist who can't tie my laces"..
Smear Tactic!
Bush Wipes Hand on Clinton
The ex-president Bush wipes his hand on wx-president Clinton's shirt after greeting Haitians
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/george-bush-wipes-hand-on-bill-clinton-10189471?tab=9482931§ion=4765066
Listen to the Radio Version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg7jA-H-jMo
Listen to the Song:
http://popup.lala.com/popup/576742262918565897
Words to the Song:
http://www.metrolyrics.com/fk-you-lyrics-lily-allen.html
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Found this Executive Summary on Facebook... I have heard these points before, so I need to research them a bit... Interesting Talking Points...Truth?
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Executive Summary of the Government Expansions, Vast New Taxes, Damaging Medicare Cuts, and Increased Health Costs and Premiums
Prepared by the Ranking Member staffs of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Billions in Wasteful Spending and Expanded Government
A budget gimmick that pays for 6 years of coverage spending with ten years of new taxes and massive Medicare cuts to hide the true ten-year implemented cost of $2.5 trillion.
Includes actual gross spending of $1.2 trillion on coverage (not $848 billion as advertised) which includes spending for Medicaid/CHIP($374 billion), CLASS Act Spending($15 billion), outlays for exchange subsidies($349 billion), government run plan payments($131 billion), risk adjustment payments($118 billion), other Medicare/Medicaid spending ($130 billion), small employer tax credits ($24 billion), and revenue effect of exchange premium credits($103 billion).
Bends the federal growth curve upward in the first decade: Federal outlays and the federal budget commitment for health care would INCREASE over the 2010-2019 by a net amount of about $160 billion.
Does not bend the federal growth curve downward in the long term: After 2019, the bill leaves the cost curve unchanged as CBO expects that in the decade following the 10-year budget window, the increases and decreases in the federal budgetary commitment to health care resulting from the Reid bill would "roughly balance out."
Half a Trillion in Damaging Medicare Cuts
Despite current unfunded liabilities of more than $37 trillion over 75 years, cuts Medicare by half a trillion dollars, not to strengthen Medicare but instead to fund yet another unsustainable new health care entitlement program.
Relies on savings from permanent cuts to payment updates that the Administration’s own Chief Actuary has called “unrealistic” and “unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent annual basis.” These types of cuts, which can result in negative payment updates, would “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries” as providers end their participation in Medicare.
In addition to these permanent cuts to Medicare payment updates, establishes a permanent board of unelected members that will dictate annual Medicare cuts geared toward reducing Medicare spending. Dubbed by The Wall Street Journal as the “Rationing Commission,” this board will create policies geared toward achieving arbitrarily determined spending targets and will impose a global budget in Medicare.
To meet arbitrary spending targets, the new Independent Medicare Advisory Board is required to recommend further cuts to Medicare, including raising Medicare prescription drug plan premiums on beneficiaries, and those recommendations would go into effect even if Congress does not act on the recommendations.
New bidding program that will cut $120 billion from Medicare Advantage. According to CBO, this will fall directly on the 11 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage who will see their extra benefits, like vision care, free flu shots and dental coverage, cut in half. This directly violates President Obama’s pledge that if you like what you have you can keep it. These cuts will hurt low-income enrollees the hardest, many of which cannot afford expensive supplemental polices to fill in the gaps in traditional Medicare.
Ignores the biggest payment problem in Medicare, the physician SGR, and leaves it virtually unsolvable in future years by making further Medicare cuts unrealistic as an offset to pay for a permanent solution. The CMS Actuary noted that reforms to the SGR physician payment mechanism “would increase Medicare costs by an estimated $214 billion” during the 10 year budget window in the House bill. Those provisions have been put into a separate bill so they would not be included in the cost of health reform when reforming physician payment is one of the most critical issues facing Medicare today, and one that should be at the top of the list of Medicare reforms.
A non-offset SGR bill in the House has been dubbed a “fiscal swindle” and a “$1.9 Trillion Gimmick” by The Wall Street Journal that would “increase Medicare's unfunded liabilities by $1.9 trillion over the next 75 years,” making the issue nearly impossible to address in later years. A non-offset SGR bill has already been defeated in the Senate, while offsets to fix the problem are being used to fund a new entitlement program instead.
A Half Trillion in New Taxes
Imposes almost a half a trillion dollars worth of new taxes, fees, and penalties on individuals, families, and businesses.
Based on data from the Joint Committee on Taxation – the non-partisan Congressional scorekeeper – the bill would break President Obama’s campaign promise by increasing taxes on individuals and families making less than $250,000 a year. This is even after taking into account the government subsidies provided to low- and certain middle-income individuals and families.
Lost Jobs and Lower Wages
The bill will impose $28 billion in new taxes on employers that do not provide government approved health plans. These new taxes will ultimately be paid by American workers in the form of reduced wages and lost jobs.
According to a recent study of similar proposals by the Heritage Foundation, these new job killing taxes will place approximately 5.2 million low income workers at risk of losing their jobs or having their hours reduced and an additional 10.2 million workers could see lower wages and reduced benefits.
Increased Premiums and Health Costs
Drives up premiums for young, healthy Americans by only allowing age bands to vary by 3 to 1. In an analysis of the Finance Committee’s 4 to 1 age band, nationally recognized actuarial firms found that premiums would increase by 20 to 50 percent, which means this bill will likely lead to even higher premium increases.
Empowers the Secretary of HHS to decide what benefits are covered; “the Secretary shall define the essential health benefits”; mandates that all plans must include the essential health benefits.
Eliminates choices and makes Americans buy more expensive coverage by mandating actuarial values of 60 percent for the bronze plan, 70 for silver, 80 for gold, and 90 for platinum.
Limits catastrophic plans to only those who are age 30 and under or for those who meet un-affordability criteria; prohibits small businesses from offering catastrophic plans.
The new mandated minimum benefits, restrictive age rating requirements, taxes on health insurance, taxes on drugs and medical supplies, taxes on expensive health plans and the cost shifting that will result from expanding Medicaid will all combine to significantly increase health care cost for individuals who will be required by this bill to buy health insurance as well as the 85% of Americans who already have health insurance.
Government Health Care
Government run plan; State opt out if the State enacts a law prohibiting offering of a government run plan in the exchange; the Secretary shall negotiate provider reimbursement rates, but they cannot be higher than average rates paid by health insurance issuers offering qualified health plans through the exchange. According to CBO, “A public plan…would typically have premiums that were somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges.”
Puts Washington in charge of your health care by mandating that all Americans must enroll in health insurance and dictating what kind of health insurance they have to buy. Also implements price controls on health insurance premiums and mandates burdensome reporting requirements.
Expands the government’s share of health care spending, so that more than half of all health care spending in the U.S. will be by the government.
Biggest Medicaid Expansion in History
Imposes $25 billion in an unfunded burden and hidden tax increase on state taxpayers by requiring all states to cover everyone with an income at 133% of the federal poverty level ($14,403 for an individual/ $29,326 for a family of four) or lower.
Locks every American below 133% of poverty without employer-sponsored care into the worst delivery system in America (Medicaid) while giving lawfully present aliens eligibility for tax credits in the Exchange.
Allows Federal Funds to pay for Abortions
The bill does not include the House-approved Stupak prohibition on abortion funding, and instead uses Madoff-like accounting gimmicks to hide the fact that federal funds will for the first time go to health plans that cover abortion.
The Secretary may require abortion coverage in the government option (if funds are segregated, but because money is fungible, it is not possible to honestly prevent federal funds from ever being used)
The bill says it does not preempt state law, but requires each exchange to offer at least one plan covering abortion (several states currently prohibit or restrict the coverage of abortion in their state regulated insurance markets).
The bill will require insurers and hospitals to contract with abortion providers – even Catholic and other religiously based insurers and hospitals, who object to abortion. Conscience provisions in current law are intended to protect doctors who refuse to perform abortions from discrimination based on their unwillingness to provide abortions. The Reid bill radically changes these laws, applying the protections for the first time to both willingness or unwillingness to perform abortions. This change falsely equates a doctor’s moral objections to abortion with the ability of groups like Planned Parenthood to force insurers who object to abortion to contract with and pay them. This change will mandate that abortion providers now must be included in the provider networks of insurers and hospitals. Any health reform bill must include conscience protections aimed at protecting providers who object to performing abortions, not protecting abortion providers
Executive Summary of the Government Expansions, Vast New Taxes, Damaging Medicare Cuts, and Increased Health Costs and Premiums
Prepared by the Ranking Member staffs of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Billions in Wasteful Spending and Expanded Government
A budget gimmick that pays for 6 years of coverage spending with ten years of new taxes and massive Medicare cuts to hide the true ten-year implemented cost of $2.5 trillion.
Includes actual gross spending of $1.2 trillion on coverage (not $848 billion as advertised) which includes spending for Medicaid/CHIP($374 billion), CLASS Act Spending($15 billion), outlays for exchange subsidies($349 billion), government run plan payments($131 billion), risk adjustment payments($118 billion), other Medicare/Medicaid spending ($130 billion), small employer tax credits ($24 billion), and revenue effect of exchange premium credits($103 billion).
Bends the federal growth curve upward in the first decade: Federal outlays and the federal budget commitment for health care would INCREASE over the 2010-2019 by a net amount of about $160 billion.
Does not bend the federal growth curve downward in the long term: After 2019, the bill leaves the cost curve unchanged as CBO expects that in the decade following the 10-year budget window, the increases and decreases in the federal budgetary commitment to health care resulting from the Reid bill would "roughly balance out."
Half a Trillion in Damaging Medicare Cuts
Despite current unfunded liabilities of more than $37 trillion over 75 years, cuts Medicare by half a trillion dollars, not to strengthen Medicare but instead to fund yet another unsustainable new health care entitlement program.
Relies on savings from permanent cuts to payment updates that the Administration’s own Chief Actuary has called “unrealistic” and “unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent annual basis.” These types of cuts, which can result in negative payment updates, would “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries” as providers end their participation in Medicare.
In addition to these permanent cuts to Medicare payment updates, establishes a permanent board of unelected members that will dictate annual Medicare cuts geared toward reducing Medicare spending. Dubbed by The Wall Street Journal as the “Rationing Commission,” this board will create policies geared toward achieving arbitrarily determined spending targets and will impose a global budget in Medicare.
To meet arbitrary spending targets, the new Independent Medicare Advisory Board is required to recommend further cuts to Medicare, including raising Medicare prescription drug plan premiums on beneficiaries, and those recommendations would go into effect even if Congress does not act on the recommendations.
New bidding program that will cut $120 billion from Medicare Advantage. According to CBO, this will fall directly on the 11 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage who will see their extra benefits, like vision care, free flu shots and dental coverage, cut in half. This directly violates President Obama’s pledge that if you like what you have you can keep it. These cuts will hurt low-income enrollees the hardest, many of which cannot afford expensive supplemental polices to fill in the gaps in traditional Medicare.
Ignores the biggest payment problem in Medicare, the physician SGR, and leaves it virtually unsolvable in future years by making further Medicare cuts unrealistic as an offset to pay for a permanent solution. The CMS Actuary noted that reforms to the SGR physician payment mechanism “would increase Medicare costs by an estimated $214 billion” during the 10 year budget window in the House bill. Those provisions have been put into a separate bill so they would not be included in the cost of health reform when reforming physician payment is one of the most critical issues facing Medicare today, and one that should be at the top of the list of Medicare reforms.
A non-offset SGR bill in the House has been dubbed a “fiscal swindle” and a “$1.9 Trillion Gimmick” by The Wall Street Journal that would “increase Medicare's unfunded liabilities by $1.9 trillion over the next 75 years,” making the issue nearly impossible to address in later years. A non-offset SGR bill has already been defeated in the Senate, while offsets to fix the problem are being used to fund a new entitlement program instead.
A Half Trillion in New Taxes
Imposes almost a half a trillion dollars worth of new taxes, fees, and penalties on individuals, families, and businesses.
Based on data from the Joint Committee on Taxation – the non-partisan Congressional scorekeeper – the bill would break President Obama’s campaign promise by increasing taxes on individuals and families making less than $250,000 a year. This is even after taking into account the government subsidies provided to low- and certain middle-income individuals and families.
Lost Jobs and Lower Wages
The bill will impose $28 billion in new taxes on employers that do not provide government approved health plans. These new taxes will ultimately be paid by American workers in the form of reduced wages and lost jobs.
According to a recent study of similar proposals by the Heritage Foundation, these new job killing taxes will place approximately 5.2 million low income workers at risk of losing their jobs or having their hours reduced and an additional 10.2 million workers could see lower wages and reduced benefits.
Increased Premiums and Health Costs
Drives up premiums for young, healthy Americans by only allowing age bands to vary by 3 to 1. In an analysis of the Finance Committee’s 4 to 1 age band, nationally recognized actuarial firms found that premiums would increase by 20 to 50 percent, which means this bill will likely lead to even higher premium increases.
Empowers the Secretary of HHS to decide what benefits are covered; “the Secretary shall define the essential health benefits”; mandates that all plans must include the essential health benefits.
Eliminates choices and makes Americans buy more expensive coverage by mandating actuarial values of 60 percent for the bronze plan, 70 for silver, 80 for gold, and 90 for platinum.
Limits catastrophic plans to only those who are age 30 and under or for those who meet un-affordability criteria; prohibits small businesses from offering catastrophic plans.
The new mandated minimum benefits, restrictive age rating requirements, taxes on health insurance, taxes on drugs and medical supplies, taxes on expensive health plans and the cost shifting that will result from expanding Medicaid will all combine to significantly increase health care cost for individuals who will be required by this bill to buy health insurance as well as the 85% of Americans who already have health insurance.
Government Health Care
Government run plan; State opt out if the State enacts a law prohibiting offering of a government run plan in the exchange; the Secretary shall negotiate provider reimbursement rates, but they cannot be higher than average rates paid by health insurance issuers offering qualified health plans through the exchange. According to CBO, “A public plan…would typically have premiums that were somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges.”
Puts Washington in charge of your health care by mandating that all Americans must enroll in health insurance and dictating what kind of health insurance they have to buy. Also implements price controls on health insurance premiums and mandates burdensome reporting requirements.
Expands the government’s share of health care spending, so that more than half of all health care spending in the U.S. will be by the government.
Biggest Medicaid Expansion in History
Imposes $25 billion in an unfunded burden and hidden tax increase on state taxpayers by requiring all states to cover everyone with an income at 133% of the federal poverty level ($14,403 for an individual/ $29,326 for a family of four) or lower.
Locks every American below 133% of poverty without employer-sponsored care into the worst delivery system in America (Medicaid) while giving lawfully present aliens eligibility for tax credits in the Exchange.
Allows Federal Funds to pay for Abortions
The bill does not include the House-approved Stupak prohibition on abortion funding, and instead uses Madoff-like accounting gimmicks to hide the fact that federal funds will for the first time go to health plans that cover abortion.
The Secretary may require abortion coverage in the government option (if funds are segregated, but because money is fungible, it is not possible to honestly prevent federal funds from ever being used)
The bill says it does not preempt state law, but requires each exchange to offer at least one plan covering abortion (several states currently prohibit or restrict the coverage of abortion in their state regulated insurance markets).
The bill will require insurers and hospitals to contract with abortion providers – even Catholic and other religiously based insurers and hospitals, who object to abortion. Conscience provisions in current law are intended to protect doctors who refuse to perform abortions from discrimination based on their unwillingness to provide abortions. The Reid bill radically changes these laws, applying the protections for the first time to both willingness or unwillingness to perform abortions. This change falsely equates a doctor’s moral objections to abortion with the ability of groups like Planned Parenthood to force insurers who object to abortion to contract with and pay them. This change will mandate that abortion providers now must be included in the provider networks of insurers and hospitals. Any health reform bill must include conscience protections aimed at protecting providers who object to performing abortions, not protecting abortion providers
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Time for a joke... I need a break from Healthcare issues....
I didn't think twice about this tiny fellow on my baby boxwood until I got this email:
GARDEN SNAKES CAN BE DANGEROUS...
Snakes also known as Garter Snakes (Thamnophissirtalis) can be dangerous. Yes, grass snakes, not rattlesnakes. Here's why.
A couple in Sweetwater, Texas, had a lot of potted plants. During a recent cold spell, the wife was bringing a lot of them indoors to protect them from a possible freeze.
It turned out that a little green garden grass snake was hidden in one of the plants. When it had warmed up, it slithered out and the wife saw it go under the sofa.
She let out a very loud scream.
The husband (who was taking a shower) ran out into the living room naked to see what the problem was. She told him there was a snake under the sofa.
He got down on the floor on his hands and knees to look for it. About that time the family dog came and cold-nosed him on the behind. He thought the snake had bitten him, so he screamed and fell over on the floor.
His wife thought he had had a heart attack, so she covered him up, told him to lie still and called an ambulance.
The attendants rushed in, would not listen to his protests, loaded him on the stretcher, and started carrying him out.
About that time, the snake came out from under the sofa and the Emergency Medical Technician saw it and dropped his end of the stretcher. That's when the man broke his leg and why he is still in the hospital.
The wife still had the problem of the snake in the house, so she called on a neighbor who volunteered to capture the snake. He armed himself with a rolled-up newspaper and began poking under the couch.. Soon he decided it was gone and told the woman, who sat down on the sofa in relief.
But while relaxing, her hand dangled in between the cushions, where she felt the snake wriggling around. She screamed and fainted, the snake rushed back under the sofa.
The neighbor man, seeing her lying there passed out, tried to use CPR to revive her.
The neighbor's wife, who had just returned from shopping at the grocery store, saw her husband's mouth on the woman's mouth and slammed her husband in the back of the head with a bag of canned goods, knocking him out and cutting his scalp to a point where it needed stitches.
The noise woke the woman from her dead faint and she saw her neighbor lying on the floor with his wife bending over him, so she assumed that the snake had bitten him. She went to the kitchen and got a small bottle of whiskey, and began pouring it down the man's throat.
By now, the police had arrived.
Breathe here...
They saw the unconscious man, smelled the whiskey, and assumed that a drunken fight had occurred. They were about to arrest them all, when the women tried to explain how it all happened over a little garden snake!
The police called an ambulance, which took away the neighbor and his sobbing wife.
Now, the little snake again crawled out from under the sofa and one of the policemen drew his gun and fired at it. He missed the snake and hit the leg of the end table. The table fell over, the lamp on it shattered and, as the bulb broke, it started a fire in the drapes.
The other policeman tried to beat out the flames, and fell through the window into the yard on top of the family dog who, startled, jumped out and raced into the street, where an oncoming car swerved to avoid it and smashed into the parked police car.
Meanwhile, neighbors saw the burning drapes and called in the fire department. The firemen had started raising the fire ladder when they were halfway down the street. The rising ladder tore out the overhead wires, put out the power, and disconnected the telephones in a ten-square city block area (but they did get the house fire out).
Time passed! Both men were discharged from the hospital, the house was repaired, the dog came home, the police acquired a new car and all was right with their world.
A while later they were watching TV and the weatherman announced a cold snap for that night. The wife asked her husband if he thought they should bring in their plants for the night.
And that's when he shot her.
P.S. Its been a long time since I laughed that hard at an email...................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)