Politics – Page 7 – Zombies Uncensored

Unintended Consequence of Bailouts? More say its OK to Cheat on Taxes

DEMCAD asks, “If you knew someone was cheating on taxes, would you turn them in?”

DEMCAD mentions an IRS oversight board poll in which 13 percent of those surveyed believed cheating on taxes is acceptable, which is up from 9 percent the year before. Then DEMCAD questions if one of the unintended consequence of the big bailouts may be justification to cheat on taxes.

The IRS Oversight Board is independent from the IRS. The board has seven members appointed by the President of the United States. Of the seven, one must be a full-time federal employee or a representative of IRS employees. I’d provide a link to the boards site, but my shrewish fear of government has kicked in.

Even though the board is independent from the IRS, its not independent from the government and that makes its polling suspect. I think its safe to say even though its a government poll showing an increase in acceptance to cheat on taxes, that there really has been an increase because there is so much disappointment with DC.

I can’t say for certain the cause for the increase is the bailouts, but I think it’s probably one of many things the government has done that has weakened the public’s perception that it acts responsibly when spending tax dollars. The Air Force One flyover of New York still pops into my mind each time the subject of irresponsible spending comes up. The flyover was a grand public display of wasting tax dollars, or what government should not be doing.

The cheating the cheaters attitude has increased, and the don’t give money to addicts attitude is increasing also.

No Universal Insurance from Overreaching Government

This section of John Stossel’s “Hands Off My Meds” has a clip with physician Dr. Frank Fisher. Prosecutors indicted Fisher for the deaths of several patients by prescribing pain medication. The Doctor spent five months in jail and spent all of his money on legal fees before finally being acquitted. The doctor mentions he is fifty-six years old and is basically starting over because the cost of defending himself left him with a net worth of zero.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb9hkoJ1RR8

The clip from didn’t fully explain just how unfairly Dr. Fisher was treated by the legal system. Here is a bit from Stop the Drug War (stopthedrugwar.org) on Dr. Fisher:

It was Medi-Cal fraud charges that were at the core of Fisher’s latest legal case. Prosecutors originally charged Fisher with 99 counts of medical fraud regarding Medi-Cal claims and improper prescribing, but a state court judge dismissed all but eight misdemeanor counts of improper billing earlier this year. Now, he has been found innocent.

“Over five years ago, Attorney General Bill Lockyer came to Redding and declared that by arresting and detaining Dr. Fisher, his prosecutors had shut down the biggest drug ring in the history of Northern California,” Reynolds continued. “Apparently unaware that aggressive pain management had become a widely recognized imperative of mainstream medicine, Lockyer sought to characterize Dr. Fisher’s practice as sinister. Most of Dr. Fisher’s patients have been unable to obtain the quality of pain care they’d received from him, hundreds have deteriorated unnecessarily, and several have died as a result. At the time of Dr. Fisher’s arrest, for example, twenty-five people who had been working, with Dr. Fisher’s help, were forced to apply for full disability. In response, PRN intends to hold the State of California and participating counties and municipalities accountable for their wanton and reckless conduct.”

Here’s what one juror had to say to Dr. Fisher in an e-mail he received after the trial: “I was juror #1. Now that I am home and can read about you on the Internet, my heart really goes out to you for what you have been through. I was upset that the prosecutor wasted my time and the court’s time on such a weak case. But now that I know what you have really been through I feel embarrassed and selfish to be thinking about my own time. I hope you can reopen your clinic some day and get back to practicing medicine, in your office or back room or anywhere you choose. Thanks for doing the job most doctors won’t.”

What caught my attention with Stossel’s show was the discussion about fairness and medicine. In the health care debate the argument is often made that it is unfair for someone to lose all their life saving do to an illness. It a tragedy when someone loses all their saving do to an illness, but its not an injustice and has nothing to do with being fair. What is unfair, is when someone loses everything due to an injustice. Life is fair, and only people can choose to be unfair and unjust.

What is unfair is there is no call to protect people who have had their life savings destroyed by acts of an overreaching government. There is no call for a universal insurance policy to cover individuals like Dr. Fisher from the reckless conduct of zealous prosecutors. No charts or graphs to show the increasing costs of defending yourself in a free country. Not a word of debate over how people can continue to afford living free when the cost of freedom has risen to everything you own plus time in prison.

There is no comparison between wanting the government to be concerned about helping its citizens when the randomness of life deals them a tragedy, and the callousness of government causing a tragedy, because the first is about charity and the second really is about fairness.

If the government is concerned about protecting people from unfairly being wiped out, it should start by looking at itself.

Who wants to be pro-FED?

The hypocrisy of the American two-party system is so equally balanced, I wonder if they meet secretly to decided which party gets to champion the political issues of the day. If they do meet to debate who gets what, I imagine it goes something like this:

Each year the Democratic and Republican parties hold this secret meeting and divvy up political issues. The meeting is moderated by the wealthiest investors, financiers, speculators, and businessmen in America.

Chairman: From our pre-meeting polling it looks like we can keep this meeting fairly brief.

Chairman: The Republican party is content to keep hold of the following issues – the elderly, low taxes, Christianity, guns, heterosexuals, the rich, small government and the military-industrial complex.

Chairman: The Democratic party is content keeping the young, income taxes, everything but Christianity, the police, homosexuals, the poor, big government, and the anthropogenic global warming complex.

Chairman: The issues we have to divide up are the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, education, Medicare, deficit reduction, and healthcare.

Chairman: From what I understand both sides have already discussed privately education and Medicare. Both sides have agreed that it makes senses for the Democratic Party to take education because they already have the young and for the Republican Party to have Medicare because they currently posses the elderly.

Chairman: That leaves us with the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, deficit reduction, and healthcare. Neither party is willing to concede ownership, so the board has divided them as follows.

Chairman: To the Republican party – Economy, terrorism, and deficit reduction.

Chairman: To the Democratic party – Jobs, social security, and healthcare.

Chairman: Objections?

Republican Party: It makes sense to put the economy and deficit reduction together because if the economy improves we can take credit for deficit reduction too. We should also get to be the champion for jobs because those are tied to the economy.

Democratic Party: Putting social security and healthcare with our party makes sense because both of those are designed to protect people, shouldn’t terrorism go to the us because terrorism is about protecting people too.

Chairman: Its been part of our bi-laws for decades, and once again I’m forced to remind all of you that its doesn’t matter if the issue grouping makes sense. The purpose of dividing the issues is so the American people are equally divided in their support of the parties. As long as the public is divided in support, both parties will remain in power.

Chairman: One last thing, the Federal Reserve. Who wants to be pro-FED? Anyone?

Who wants to be pro-FED?

Chairman: From our pre-meeting polling it looks like we can keep this meeting fairly brief.

Chairman: The issues we have to divide up are the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, education, Medicare, deficit reduction, and healthcare.

Chairman: To the Republican party – Economy, terrorism, and deficit reduction.

Chairman: To the Democratic party – Jobs, social security, and healthcare.

Chairman: Objections?

Chairman: One last thing, the Federal Reserve. Who wants to be pro-FED? Anyone?

Congress: Just Gimme Two New Parties

Here is Senator McCaskill arguing for extending unemployment benefits. The speech starts out with McCaskill pointing out Republican senators voted for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries without paying for it. It is not very clear, but the argument seems to be if it was OK in the past to avoid worrying about debt, we shouldn’t be worrying about debt today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBAzOEq9r-M

Senator McCaskill mentions cosponsoring PAYGO, but seems to be saying pay as you go can be ignored because of Republican hypocrisy of not paying for programs. All I can gather from this is its OK to be hypocritical, as long as the opposition is more hypocritical.

It’s a safe bet that soon there will be a Republican senator pointing to Democratic hypocrisy on debt as an excuse more debt. I want at least two completely new parties to take power just so we can get away from this justification via hypocrisy arguments. Two new parties would at least hit the reset button on finger pointing for a few years–maybe even long enough to fix DC.

If HealthCare Reform is Like Buying Meat: Hands off My Hotdog

I’m glad the President made a meat industry analogy, because its a good opportunity to point out the flaws in the President’s proposal.

President Obama at the Health Care Summit:

We could set up a system where food was cheaper than it is right now if we just eliminated meat inspectors, and we eliminated any regulations on how food is distributed and how its stored. I’ll bet in terms of drug prices we would definitely reduce prescription drug prices if we didn’t have a drug administration that makes sure that we test the drugs so that they don’t kill us, but we don’t do that. We make some decisions to protect consumers in every aspect of our lives.

If the role of government in health insurance is analogous to the meat industry then according to the Presidents proposal –

We would all be required to purchase meat even if we didn’t want it.
We wouldn’t be able to choose between buying hotdogs or steaks; we have to buy steaks.
We could buy some steaks from some vendors in other states, but wouldn’t be able to buy hotdogs from anyone, anywhere.
Those too poor to afford meat would have free steaks, but not hotdogs.
The meat industry would be labeled greedy for profiting from people’s inevitable hunger.
Supermarkets would only be allowed to sell steaks.
We would all be protected from affordable meats like hotdogs, turkey, and chicken.

Its would be wrong to tell vegetarians to buy meat, and it’s equally wrong to tell Christian Scientists to buy health insurance. It would be an intrusion of government to decide which meats we can afford, just as its an overreach into our personal lives for DC to to tell us how much insurance to buy.

Forcing people to buy meat would only protect some meat companies, just as forcing people to buy health insurance only protects some insurance companies. The wide variety and affordable prices of meats at supermarkets didn’t come about through a DC-based algorithm of price controls and income-based prices. It came about by supply and demand and a free market.

To President Obama: stay away from my health insurance, and hands off my hotdog, too.

ObamaCare – You’ll be in control, except when you aren’t.

Out of morbid curiosity, I looked at the Presidents new health care proposal. I wanted to know if the word “mandate” was used in the proposal. Mandate is in there, but it’s not used in the portion describing what the cost is to each person. If you choose to remain uninsured you have to make a payment. In other words, buying health insurance isn’t mandatory, but paying for it is mandatory.

There are other carefully chosen words and phrases in this proposal, like the very first line:

The President’s Proposal puts American families and small business owners in control of their own health care.

Taking away control of choosing to purchase health insurance now puts you in control of health insurance. Just as forcing everyone to purchase a fitness club membership (or make a payment if they choose to remain unfit) puts them in control of their fitness. You will now be in control, except when you aren’t.

Health care costs are described as inevitable as in “make a payment to offset the cost of care they will inevitably need.” Using life insurance is inevitable; using health care insurance is not inevitable. Even using catastrophic health insurance is not inevitable. Not everyone will have an accident and not everyone spends the last year of their life under medical care.

The part titled Improve Individual Responsibility has two paragraphs covering the cost to each person; the cost is not described as a tax, fine, or a penalty. The choice of words to describe the cost is payment, alternative payment and assessment. It’s not a tax, fine, or a penalty; it’s simply a transfer of money from you to your government, and anyone who says otherwise is just itching for a fight.

The proposal mentions curbing insurance company abuses. Its pretty low when insurance contracts have ambiguous, difficult to decipher, or hidden intentions. I’m assuming thats what the President means abuses along the lines of technical language the layperson doesn’t understand or adding hidden meanings, terms, conditions, or unexpressed intentions. Only a lowlife like an insurance company would stoop to those shady tactics.

Below are the two paragraphs covering the transfer of wealth.

Improve Individual Responsibility. All Americans should have affordable health insurance coverage. This helps everyone, both insured and uninsured, by reducing cost shifting, where people with insurance end up covering the inevitable health care costs of the uninsured, and making possible robust health insurance reforms that will curb insurance company abuses and increase the security and stability of health insurance for all Americans. The House and Senate bills require individuals who have affordable options but who choose to remain uninsured to make a payment to offset the cost of care they will inevitably need. The House bill’s payment is a percentage of income. The Senate sets the payment as a flat dollar amount or percentage of income, whichever is higher (although not higher than the lowest premium in the area). Both the House and Senate bill provide a low-income exemption, for those individuals with incomes below the tax filing threshold (House) or below the poverty threshold (Senate).The Senate also includes a “hardship” exemption for people who cannot afford insurance, included in the President’s Proposal. It protects those who would face premiums of more than 8 percent of their income from having to pay any assessment and they can purchase a low-cost catastrophic plan in the exchange if they choose.

The President’s Proposal adopts the Senate approach but lowers the flat dollar assessments, and raises the percent of income assessment that individuals pay if they choose not to become insured. Specifically, it lowers the flat dollar amounts from $495 to $325 in 2015 and $750 to $695 in 2016. Subsequent years are indexed to $695 rather than $750, so the flat dollar amounts in later years are lower than the Senate bill as well. The President’s Proposal raises the percent of income that is an alternative payment amount from 0.5 to 1.0% in 2014, 1.0 to 2.0% in 2015, and 2.0 to 2.5% for 2016 and subsequent years – the same percent of income as in the House bill, which makes the assessment more progressive. For ease of administration, the President’s Proposal changes the payment exemption from the Senate policy (individuals with income below the poverty threshold) to individuals with income below the tax filing threshold (the House policy). In other words, a married couple with income below $18,700 will not have to pay the assessment. The President’s Proposal also adopts the Senate’s “hardship” exemption.

TMD;ST – Too Much Debate; Stopped Thinking

After seeing there is yet another health care plan from President Barack Obama, I’m becoming an advocate for ignorance and apathy. There is an eleven page PDF about the Presidents latest proposal and my first thought was to respond with tl;dr (“Too long; didn’t read”). The country needs a retreaded health care proposal about as much as the internet needs another opinion… like this one. At this point one more health care proposal or debate is just tears in rain.

I know my first reaction to something isn’t always the best response. I’ve tried to stay informed on the health care debate. I want to have at least a semi-informed view. After hearing this issued debated through a two-year Presidential campaign and a year of Obama’s Presidency I think there has been enough debate. I’ve heard so much about health care that parts of my brain have gone on strike and are boycotting my natural curiosity.

You know that soft spot on a baby’s head? That is what health care is on my brain. The optimist and lizard portions of my brain have been demanding curiosity supply some good news about the economy. Since natural curiosity has done such a poor job supplying any news to satiate the cries from optimism, other portions of my brain have started listening to ignorance and apathy calls to censor optimism. The ugly mess our nation is in, has been reproduced in my consciousness.

The conspiracy part of my brain is still somewhat active (and trying to convince the logic center that the plethora of health care bills is a plot to bring about this apathetic response). Logic is demanding more proof before it will seriously consider conspiracy’s argument.

The logic center is just out of luck in hopes of further information, because TMD; ST (Too Much Debate; Stopped Thinking.)

Cable News – Boundaries? We Don’t Need No Stinking Boundaries.

I’m a firm believer that the institutions of society should be independent from one another; each institution that becomes too entwined with another isn’t doing justice to its primary role. Watching the Sunday morning news shows, I discovered another example of the damage caused by lack of this independence.

I was watching Alex Witt on MSNBC News Live Sunday morning and the next story up was another report about the Olympics. I flipped over to CNN because I’ve been getting annoyed with MSNBC pimping NBC’s coverage of the Olympics on their news channel.

Over on CNN’s Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz, the subject was about FOX News crossing boundaries. FOX had covered Glenn Beck‘s speech at CPAC live on their network. Since I had just flipped from MSNBC pimping one of their shows, I thought here is another example of a cable network (FOX) pimping one of their shows (Glenn Beck).

I watch the rest of Reliable Sources until State of the Union with Candy Crowley comes on. Candy Crowley starts the show out by holding an upcoming cover of Time magazine. The Time cover was the subject for State of the Union. CNN and Time magazine are both owned by Time Warner. In other words, here is CNN pimping Time magazine.

Twenty minutes of channel flipping really brought home all the complaints I’ve heard for years about cable news being too corporate. They all claim to be impartial and unbiased, but boundaries of independent reporting are gone and their shows have turned into commercials for other arms of their corporation.

I don’t want to search the internet for each story cable news reports on to find out what connection the channel has to the subject they are reporting on. If there is anyone out there willing to start a completely independent cable news channel, you got at least one customer who will tune in to watch.