Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks

This is an example of how the government justifies taking control of our lives.

I was drinking a cup of coffee, relaxed in my easy chair reading the Federal Register -
(21 CFR Parts 1, 16, 106, Et al. Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption; Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food...).

That heading really caught my attention as it would yours. So I wanted to know what it would do, what it would cost and what benefits it would provide. Along with a lot of testing and record keeping, it says there better not be any human or animal poop nearby.

But here are some significant numbers:

1. Estimate of number of food borne illnesses prevented: 1.75 million
2. The cost saving associated of those illnesses: $1.04 billion
3. The cost of the proposed rules: $630.18 million

That is a worldwide benefit of $406.22 million. Isn't that impressive? In coming up with the number of illnesses and their costs the FDA added this:

"...Making a precise estimate of the rule's likely effectiveness is extremely difficult, because FDA has only limited data that would establish a clear baseline estimate of how contamination occurs and the likely impact of the proposed provisions on that baseline, with respect to causing human illness."

I'll interpret that for you. "We threw some numbers up in the air and these came down face up so we could read them."

The cost of $630.18 million is paid by the farms. The estimated cost per farm ranges from $4,697 to $30,566. The savings for illnesses is about $595 per person because the person did not get sick. Of course, if you apply that to the American society instead of just the person not getting sick, then it comes out to about $2 per person.

So when you buy that head of lettuce and you notice there is a slight increase in cost to you, don't forget that $2 that you saved.

Mean and divisive people

Back in 2012, a recording of Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for President, was made public. You remember that. He said that 47% of the people will vote for Obama no matter what. They don't pay taxes. They depend upon the government. They believe they are victims. They believe the government has the responsibility to take care of them. "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Jim Messina, the President's campaign manager, immediately said that Romney was demonstrating disgust and disdain for one-half of Americans and should not be president. The Associated Press and the Guardian immediately pointed out that his comment included the elderly. The Guardian said he was "a bad politician" and "a bad person." It concluded that he is mean and divisive and not qualified to be president. 

Now President Obama has said that only 5% will lose their insurance coverage. In an interview on NBC recently he said: "We're talking about 5% of the population who are in what's called the individual market. They're out there buying health insurance on their own." So we give him a pass. I mean, there's a big difference between 5% and 47%.

Well maybe not. First let's consider that he lies. If his lips are moving, he is lying. In a post in The Apothecary, with Avik Roy, Roy quotes the Federal Register state saying that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will lose the "grandfather status." Combine that with the cancellation of private-sector health insurance and we get close to 93 million Americans losing their policies.

 Okay, now we are getting closer to 47%. So is the prez showing "disgust and disdain?" Is he "a bad politician" and "a bad person?" Is he being "mean and divisive and not qualified to be president?"

There are many people coming forward and saying (anecdotal evidence) that the premiums for the plans being offered to them are much higher. They also say that their out of pocket costs (deductibles and cost-sharing) will be much higher. There is no such parade of people coming forward and saying just the opposite. 

We were duped by the president and all the other democrats.
I'll say it. The president is disgusting, mean and divisive.

Another war on women

Check out these facts:
Each year, diseases caused by cigarette smoking result in $96 billion in health care costs much of which is paid by taxpayers through publicly-funded health programs. Smoking puts each of us in danger AND there is an associated cost. So the government has told us to quit smoking, moved smokers outside and then off the property.

(Most data in this post come from the FDA website)

Trans fats are bad for us.Reducing trans fat consumption could prevent 10,000-20,000 heart attacks and 3,000-7,000 coronary heart disease deaths each year in the U S. The economic cost for the U S from heart disease, diabetes, and cancer is estimated at $71 billion annually. Trans fats are putting our health in danger and there is an associated cost. Get rid of the Crisco, donuts and packaged cookies and cakes.

We love our snack foods. In 2005, the medical costs attributable to obesity in the US were an estimated $190 billion. Snack foods are putting our health in danger and there is an associated cost. So snack foods are being taken out of schools and in some locales are being taxed in the hope of reducing consumption.

The CDCs new estimates show that there are about 20 million new infections in the US each year, costing the American healthcare system nearly $16 billion in direct medical costs alone. If left untreated, STDs can lead to serious complications, such as pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, ectopic pregnancy and death. Health problems caused by STDs tend to be more severe and more frequent for women than for men. And young African-American women face significantly higher rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea than any other group.

The strange thing is that the government takes action against the previously mentioned bad things to reduce the activity. But the government, through Obamacare, is encouraging the activity from which STDs arise. Because of Obamacare, birth control is "free." When anything is free, the user will chose the best on the list and use it often. Now there are advertisements for Obamacare suggesting that women should sign up for Obamacare because it allows easy access to birth control. In the ad, Susie says: "...My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers."

Sandra Fluke demanded that insurance providers allow for free birth control. Her demand was met. Now women are being encouraged to engage in a more active sex life.

STDs are putting our health in danger and there is an associated cost.  But this activity is being encouraged by the government. Isn't this bad for all of us?

Isn't this a war on women?

Hey dems: READ THE BILLS

You've seen videos of an alligator being caught with a rope, haven't you? Upon being caught, the gator twists violently. That's the prez and the other democrats now. They are twisting and turning trying to get out of the mess they are in. And what is holding the other end of the rope? No, it is not the republicans. It is the law, Obamacare. The democrats (and not one republican) passed a law that none of them had read. They trusted the creators of this thing. The creators were university professors and other socialist-leaning people. Their goal was to gain absolute control over each American life under the assumption that "We can make their life better."

I blame the mess they are in on one group of Americans. I blame all who did not read it.

The senators and representatives did not read the bill and did not have their aides analyze any part of it. The bill had over 2800 pages. Remember Rep Conyers saying that you would have to have several days to read it and a team of lawyers to understand what was in it?

The media did not read the bill, yet they supported it. They supported their favorite team. They assumed their team certainly could do no wrong with this bill.

Some people read it (at least in part) and turned against it. Check out my posts from 2009.
When anyone spoke against it, those who had not read it resorted to name calling and generalities. "It will cover the 30 million people without insurance." "No one will be denied coverage." "We can all get ...free and free...." "They are radicals." "They are the far right." They claimed the 30 million were unable to get insurance. The truth was that only some of those were unable to get insurance. Many chose not to be insured.

What else are they not reading?

The immigration bill is nearly 1200 pages. Did the senators read it or just pass it? Here's what Luis Gutierrez says: “We are looking for a piece of legislation that meets the needs of a 21st century economy, and at the same time renews the American commitment to the dignity and capacity of people living and working within our borders and the indelible right to humane and equal treatment under the law—not just one that is politically viable.” 

Well, that sums up 1200 pages in such a way that I would vote for it...NOT.

The dormant global warming bill (HB2454) has nearly 1000 pages. I know none of them have read that. They are just told that is what their party wants, so PASS IT.  Fortunately, Obamacare sidetracked that. But remember, the prez has signed an E O  and formed a committee. He's doing an end run to get that job done.

To all the elected officials in D C: READ THE BILLS. Then tell us, without the feel good language, what is in it, what it does, what it doesn't do, what it prevents, what it allows and what it costs.

We will tell you how to vote for us, the people you represent.

The immigration bill: More tax dollars going to the unions

The economy is in the tank. What actions can the government take to create a business environment that will lead to economic growth and therefore, more jobs? The government thinks that if you create a youth employment plan for the summer that there will be more job slots available. In the immigration bill (S 744), there is Title V which allocates $1.5 billion to the states based upon their unemployment levels. If jobs are not being created currently, where will these youth go to work? Sounds like the Senate just wants to increase the employment in government (union) positions.

There will be "training and eduction" related to this. And of course, we don't have any of those provided by the government, do we? The states will create workforce investment areas. That just creates a "zone" in which the state will spend our money. In the past, when these zones are created, the employers are given some kind of monetary reward for hiring one of the participants. This could be a Federal, State or Local tax break of some kind. So if new jobs are not being created, what's going on? Seems to me that the employer is going to "lay off" an employee and hire a participant in the plan  to get the monetary reward. 

I hate to be negative but we are accomplishing nothing more than taking money out of our pockets and feeding more government programs. Let's create an environment that encourages businesses to create NEW job positions. The youth will become employed because there will be a true need.

The tax man cometh

Here are some of the causes for the high premium costs:

There is a total of $11,000,000,000 (11 billion) collected annually from drug and device manufacturers and insurance providers. That amount includes $6.7 billion from the providers. That gets added to the premium costs.

Insurance companies are not allowed to pay any employee more than $500,000 in any year. If it does, the excess is not deductible on their tax returns. That extra tax adds to your premium.

Here are some other taxes that may affect you:

Medical costs on schedule A of your tax return is deductible to the extent they exceed 10% of AGI. That's an increase from 7 1/2%. That decreases your deduction.

If your wages exceed $250,000 on a joint return, then you pay an additional .5% tax on the excess. That additional tax also applies to self-employed earnings.

There is a 5% tax on cosmetic surgery that does not alleviate a medical condition.

And of course, there is a 10% tax on tanning services.

Another stupid politician speaks up

This is from the Blaze (bold is mine):
Under Massachusetts law, it is “unlawful to store or keep any firearm … in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

That law is meant to protect us. Just think...someone breaks into your home and your weapon is locked up.  "Hold a sec, I'll be right with you." The weapon is inoperable for anyone at that point.

So now a local politician wants to pass a law that allows the police to come in to make sure the homeowner is abiding by the law. This guy is as disgusting as those breaking into our homes.