Republicans Face an Uphill Battle

It looks like I was wrong, when I said that Congress was responsible for the latest increases in Gas and Oil, it's the Democrats in Congress that have given Congress a bad name. Republicans are facing an uphill battle to save the U.S. Economy and the U.S. Consumer's wallets and Bank accounts, but the Democrats are fighting them tooth and nail.
Let the Democrats in Congress know how you feel by participating in Operation Drill Bit. Let then know we're watching.

• On January 4, 2005, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) introduced a bill (H.R. 39) to repeal the prohibition against the production of oil and gas from ANWR and any leasing or development leading to such production.

• On April 21, 2005, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6) by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to allow oil and gas leasing in ANWR. 90% of Republicans voted for the bill, while 80% of the Democrats voted against it. The provision was removed before the bill was signed into law.

• On October 6, 2005, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 4004) to repeal the prohibition against the production, leasing, and development of oil and gas from ANWR. Rep. Paul has reintroduced the legislation in the 110th Congress (H.R. 2415).

• On May 23, 2006, Rep, Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) introduced a bill (H.R. 5462) to direct the Bureau of Land Management to establish an oil and gas leasing program in ANWR and conduct two lease sales there before October 1, 2010.

• On May 25, 2006, the House passed a bill (H.R. 5429) by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) to repeal the proscription against the production or leasing of oil and gas resources from the ANWR and to provide extensive environmental safeguards for such production. 87% of Republicans voted for the bill, while 86% of the Democrats voted against it.

• On July 26, 2006, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) introduced a bill (H.R. 5890) to repeal the prohibition against production of oil and gas from ANWR and any leasing or development leading to such production.

• On July 18, 2007, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 3089) to repeal the prohibition against producing oil and gas from ANWR.

  OCS. Republicans have also consistently proposed expanding energy exploration and extraction on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), the lands under the waters surrounding the United States, most of which are statutorily off limits to energy development. Reports indicate that such expansion could yield 86 billion barrels of oil.

• On February 17, 2005, Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) introduced a bill (H.R. 907) to allow easements or rights-of-way for energy and related purposes on the OCS for otherwise prohibited activities when such activities support exploration, development, production, transportation, or storage of oil, natural gas, or other minerals.

• On April 13, 2005, Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) introduced a bill (H.R. 1596) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant a lease, easement, right-of-way, license, or permit on the OCS for activities not otherwise authorized under existing law, if those activities support or promote exploration, development, production, transportation, or storage of oil, natural gas, or other minerals.

• On April 21, 2005, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6) by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant, on either a competitive or noncompetitive basis, a lease, easement, or right-of-way on the OCS for activities not otherwise authorized under current laws, if those activities support exploration, development, production, transportation, or storage of oil, natural gas, or other minerals. 90% of Republicans voted for the bill, while 80% of the Democrats voted against it. These provisions were retained in the final version of the bill signed into law, and a provision was added to direct the Secretary of the Interior to inventory, analyze, and report to Congress on oil and natural gas resources beneath all of the waters of the OCS.

• On September 15, 2005, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 3811) to terminate any prohibition on the expenditure of federal funds to conduct oil and natural gas leasing and preleasing activities anywhere on the OCS and to terminate all withdrawals of federal OCS land from leasing activities.

• On September 27, 2005, Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) introduced a bill (H.R. 3918) to terminate any prohibition on the expenditure of federal funds to conduct natural gas leasing and preleasing activities anywhere on the OCS and to terminate all withdrawals of federal OCS land from leasing for exploration for, and development and production of, natural gas. Rep. Peterson introduced a similar bill (H.R. 4318) on November 15, 2005.

• On October 6, 2005, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 4004) to terminate any prohibition on the expenditure of federal funds to conduct oil and natural gas leasing and preleasing activities anywhere on the OCS and to terminate all withdrawals of federal OCS land from leasing activities. Rep. Paul reintroduced the bill (H.R. 2415) in the 110th Congress.

• On November 7, 2005, Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA) introduced a bill (H.R. 4241) that contained a provision terminating the effect of all existing federal laws prohibiting the spending of appropriated funds to conduct oil and natural gas leasing and preleasing activities for OCS areas. The provision was omitted from the version of the bill that passed the House.

• On May 18, 2006, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) offered an amendment (H.Amdt. 842) to strike sections of the Interior Appropriations bill that prohibit the expenditure of funds for OCS oil leasing activities in certain areas. A majority of Republicans voted for the amendment, while Democrats overwhelmingly voted against it.

• On June 29, 2006, the House passed a bill (H.R. 4761) by Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) to greatly increase energy development on the OCS, including a prohibition on more than 25% of the acreage of any OCS Planning Area being withdrawn from leasing more than 100 miles from any coastline. 86% of Republicans voted for the bill, while 79% of Democrats voted against it.

• On July 18, 2007, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 3089) to terminate all existing federal laws prohibiting expenditures to conduct oil and natural gas leasing and preleasing activities on the OCS.

• On August 3, 2007, Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS) introduced a bill (H.R. 3435) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to inventory oil and natural gas resources beneath the waters of the OCS, other than those in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Florida. The Secretary would have to make available for oil and natural gas leasing all such inventoried areas.

Republicans continue to try to get Petroleum that's available in the form of Tar Sands, Oil Shale and Coal to Liquids to increase the U.S. supply of oil from alternative sources, I'll give you two guesses on who's blocking these bills, but you're only going to need one.

• On February 9, 2005, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) introduced a bill (H.R. 681) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue separately, for the same area, a lease for tar sands and a lease for oil and gas.

• On July 28, 2005, the House passed a conference report (H.R. 6) led by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to instruct the Secretary of the Interior to make available for leasing public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in order to conduct research and development of technologies for the recovery of liquid fuels from oil shale and tar sands. The legislation also contained various other provisions encouraging the increased development of oil shale and tar sands, including evaluating and mapping U.S. oil shale and tar sands deposits and instructing the Defense Department to procure fuel derived from U.S. coal ("coal-to-liquids"), oil shale, and tar sands 90% of Republicans voted for the conference report, while 80% of the Democrats voted against it.

• On November 18, 2005, the House passed a bill (H.R. 4241) by Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA) that contained a provision facilitating the commencement of oil shale and tar sands leases.

• On June 27, 2007, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) offered an amendment (H.Amdt. 452) to the Interior Appropriations bill to carve out Utah and Wyoming from certain restrictions on oil shale development. 91% of Republicans voted for the amendment, while 89% of Democrats voted against it.

• On March 31, 2008, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 5656) to repeal Section 526 of the major energy bill of 2007 that prohibited federal agencies from procuring fuels made from unconventional petroleum sources.

Republicans also realize that one of the best ways to lower gas prices is for NEW players to get involved in Oil and Gas Refineries, so they're trying to make it easier for that to happen, but of course, the Democrats keep blocking for the Big Oil companies, I mean they don't want to upset those Record Profits to they?:

• On April 21, 2005, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6) by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), which included, among other things, provisions to prescribe guidelines for the designation of refinery revitalization zones and the coordination and expeditious review of permitting process for such zones. 90% of Republicans voted for the bill, while 80% of the Democrats voted against it. Subsequent iterations of the legislation included tax incentives for refinery investment.

• On September 20, 2005, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) introduced a bill (H.R. 3836) containing a variety of provisions to expedite federal permitting procedures for construction or expansion of domestic petroleum refining facilities.

• On September 22, 2005, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) introduced a bill (H.R. 3887) to direct the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense, to jointly designate three closed military installations as suitable for constructing oil refineries and to prohibit the federal government, for two years, from selling or disposing of any such designated site except for purposes of oil refinery construction.

• On September 27, 2005, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) introduced a bill (H.R. 3924) to revise the tax deduction for certain liquid fuels refinery property to allow expensing of the entire cost of such property if the property allows for a production capacity increase of five percent or more on an average daily basis; and to allow, in lieu of such expensing deduction, a five-year recovery period for the depreciation of such refinery property.

• On October 6, 2005, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 4004) to provide additional tax incentives for investment in oil refineries. Rep. Paul reintroduced the legislation in the 110th Congress (H.R. 2415).

• On October 7, 2005, the House passed a bill (H.R. 3893) by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) that included a variety of provisions aimed at facilitating the siting, construction, expansion, and operation of refineries. 94% of Republicans voted for the bill, while 100% of Democrats voted against the bill.

• On June 20, 2006, Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY) introduced a bill (H.R. 5653) to extend the election to expense the construction of oil and unconventional fuel (including oil shale and coal-to-liquids) refineries until 2016. Rep. Lewis reintroduced the bill (H.R. 683) in the 110th Congress.

• On July 18, 2007, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 3089) to provide for increased expensing of refinery property and direct the President to designate at least ten sites for oil or natural gas refineries on federal lands and make such sites available to the private sector for refinery construction.

If you take a look at the first picture on this page, it shows a yellow and orange area in the North East corner of Alaska, this is a closeup of that area. The two spots, marked .08 is the proposed drilling areas. That area is about 100 miles from any trees, it's nothing but a frigid swamp. That Tiny spot in ANWR that we'd like to develop, I mean it's like a little pea in the middle of a football field, but again the Democrats put up EVEN MORE Barriers:

• On February 2, 2005, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced a bill (H.R. 567) to designate oil-rich lands within ANWR as wilderness and components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, thus erecting another barrier to energy extraction there. Rep. Markey has reintroduced the legislation in the 110th Congress (H.R. 39).

• On April 20, 2005, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) offered an amendment (H.Amdt. 72) to H.R. 6 to strike the provisions of the underlying bill allowing oil and gas exploration in ANWR. 85% of Democrats voted for the amendment, while 87% of the Republicans voted against it.

China is building Oil Drilling platforms just 50 or 60 Miles off the coast of Florida on the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf), in a partnership with Cuba. Using horizontal Drilling, they'll probably even be able to get to OUR RESERVES!!! Do Democrats care?

• On April 21, 2005, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) introduced a bill (H.R. 1798) to prohibit leasing for the exploration, development, or production of oil, natural gas, or any other mineral in either the Mid-Atlantic or the North Atlantic planning areas of the OCS. Rep. Pallone reintroduced the bill (H.R. 777) in the 110th Congress.

• On February 16, 2006, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced a bill (H.R. 4782) to prohibit oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities in areas of the OCS located off the coast of California and to exclude such areas from the OCS inventory required under current law. Rep. Capps reintroduced the bill (H.R. 2918) in the 110th Congress.

• On May 4, 2006, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) introduced a bill (H.R. 5300) to repeal the existing law requirement for a comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and natural gas resources. Rep. Hinchey reintroduced the bill (H.R. 586) in the 110th Congress.

• On April 19, 2007, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) introduced a bill (H.R. 1957) to prohibit the conduct of oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities in OCS areas located in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area and to exclude such planning area from a mandated inventory of OCS oil and natural gas resources.

• On June 15, 2007, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) introduced a bill (H.R. 2758) to prohibit oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities in areas of the OCS located off the coast of Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties in the state of California and to exclude such areas from the mandatory inventory of OCS energy reserves.

• On April 24, 2008, Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) introduced a bill (H.R. 5861) to prohibit oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities in certain areas of the OCS off the coast of Florida.

When Nancy Pelosi rode into power 2 years ago, she promised to do something about Gas prices which had gone up around 50% to just over $2.00 a gallon. Instead, prices have doubled since the Democrats took over congress. Of course, Nancy Pelosi in True political fashion, blamed the whole thing on Bush, but let's take a look at what the Democrats have done when it comes to alternative energy like Oil Shale, Tar Sands, Heavy Oil and Coal Gasification.

• On December 7, 2006, Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) introduced a bill (H.R. 6417) to repeal the tax credit for producing fuel from a nonconventional source.

• On June 27, 2007, Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) offered an amendment (H.Amdt. 448) to the Interior Appropriations bill to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to prepare or publish final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale resources on public lands or to conduct an oil shale lease sale. 88% of Democrats voted for the amendment, while 93% of Republicans voted against it.

• On June 27, 2007, the House passed the Interior Appropriations bill (H.R. 2643) introduced by Rep. Norman Dicks (D-WA), which included a provision to prohibit the use of funds to prepare or publish final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources on public lands or to conduct an oil shale lease sale pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 98% of Democrats voted for the bill, while 76% of Republicans voted against it.

• On August 4, 2007, the House passed a bill (H.R. 3221) that includes a prohibition on surface occupancy for oil or gas exploration or development purposes in each lease for certain federal lands on the Roan Plateau in Colorado. 96% of Democrats voted for the bill, while 86% of Republicans voted against it.

• On December 18, 2007, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6), now current law, that prohibits federal agencies from procuring fuels made from unconventional petroleum sources, aimed at stopping the Defense Department's plan to procure fuels derived from Canadian oil sands.

And of course, the Democrats just HAD to make smaller Oil refineries EVEN MORE expensive:

• On November 18, 2005, Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-VT, who caucused with the Democrats) introduced a bill (H.R. 4420) to repeal, among other things, the tax incentive from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 allowing a taxpayer to expense 50% of the cost of certain crude oil refinery property placed in service before January 1, 2008.

• On April 27, 2006, Rep. John Larson (D-CT) introduced a bill (H.R. 5234) to repeal tax incentives from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 relating to expensing of crude oil refinery property and exemptions from limitations on oil depletion deductions for certain small crude oil refiners.

All of this leads you to wonder why are the Democrats doing this? Don't they realize how hard this is hitting the poor and middle class, the very people they claim to represent? Don't they realize what all of this has been doing to the World food supply and how many of the world's poor are going hungry over this? Probably because of their belief in Global Warming, but despite their claims, the science isn't quite settled on this yet. Even Europe, while paying lip service to Global Warming is still moving ahead with their plans of building more Coal Fired Plants, Shale to Oil, Coal to Oil, Oil drilling and everything else they need to secure their energy future. Does it seem prudent to destroy the U.S. economy over something that's not quite known. Let's remember that man made Global warming is STILL a theory, and even if the models turn out to be true, if the record breaking cold weather keeps up that we've been having over the past couple of years, we're going to need that energy to keep warm.

The only thing we can do, is let congress know we're watching their every move, and one of the best ways to do this is by participating in Operation Drill Bit. Let's FLOOD Washington with Drill bits so they get the message, if you've already participate, then a heartfelt THANK YOU. If not, please get to the Hardware Store now, or even send in some old ones you have lying around. They will only act if they think we're watching.

Michelle Obama's Not for Profit Hospitals' "Windfall Profits"

I was browsing around the Internet when I came across this Website, ObamaTruth.org. I always felt that Obama was disingenuous, but WOW, I was completely unaware of this:
The big problem I have with this is that Obama is talking about having the Government take over the Oil business because of Price Gouging, while Oil companies are making less than an 8% markup. In the mean time, Obama's Wife's Hospital:

1. Marks up their services to the Uninsured by over 350%
2. Is supposed to be Non Profit, but instead earned over 100 Million Dollars!
   
3. DOESN'T provide the uninsured a discount (despite windfall profits).
4. Spends 10 Million dollars a year on collection agents, despite windfall profits and non-profit status!
   
5. Former CEO walked away with 4.58 million in compensation.
6. Did nothing when the hospital refused to give more Charity Care, in light of Windfall Profits.
7. Michelle Obama received a MASSIVE 200K raise, to over 300K a year!
   
8. Finally, Obama has accepted over 100 Thousand Dollars in Campaign contributions over the past several years.

I decided to start digging for more though, and here's what I found:

1. Michelle Obama's raise actually propelled her salary past other VP's who had been there FAR Longer then she had.
2. Of the 98 Million in Earmarks that Obama has spent of your tax payer dollars, 1 Million went to the Hospital for a proposed pavilion. (This is a Hospital who had over 100 Million in profits, while it's a Non Profit Hospital!)
3. Obama's wife's hospital is also involved in a nasty lawsuit where the uninsured are claiming that they were not only incredibly overcharged for their stays there, but that they relentlessly hounded them for the money, while their supposed to be a Non Profit!

I've expressed my views on Health care, but for someone who claims to be for the Poor and the Middle class, Obama seems to have absolutely no regard for them, at least when it comes to his and his wife's profits!

Global Warming .... Make that Cooling

Call me crazy, call me stupid, but this doesn't make any sense. According to the U.S Government The Climate has been on a cooling trend over the past 10 years.

The Global Warming Alarmist, are all saying that Carbon output is causing Global Warming, and yet in the past 10 years, worldwide Carbon emissions keep rising, as a matter of fact, China alone has added 2 Coal Fired Power plants every single week over the past decade, and that doesn't even include their Oil burning and Gas burning ones that they've added. As a matter of fact, they don't even apply the same stringent environmental controls to their plants that the U.S.A. uses, so their pollution output is significantly higher than the same plants built in the U.S. And yet, we still have had a global cooling trend in the past couple of years. What gives? Maybe this is the reason why the World Bank is trying to siphon off dollars meant to reduce Carbon output, because they know that it really doesn't make and difference and this is all about money.

In the mean time, food prices are still going through the roof, all around the world the poor are the hardest hit. We're doing this supposedly to reduce Carbon output because, we're told it causes Global warming? Clearly, this is not the case. Congress has done nothing but block efforts to increase Oil and Gas production and we're paying through the nose, all for what? To reduce Carbon Output to save the world? Carbon has gone up by MASSIVE amounts, and yet the planet is still cooling!

I've said it before Congress needs to show us they care, but it seems that they're too beholden to the special interest groups, like the Sierra Club and others, to look at straight up FACTS. This information comes from a the government agency that monitors the climate, not some right wing conspiracy group, so what is the problem?
We need to make it clear to congress that we mean business. They need to start Drilling, NOW. We need those Shale to Oil converters running NOW. We need the Coal to Oil Gasification NOW. And if we don't get it, they will be out of a job (right along with the rest of us, since we won't be able to afford to gas it takes to go to work).

One of the best ways to let congress know is by participating in Operation Drill Bit.

Obama's Electoral College Outlook

OK, so the results are in and it's an Obama win on the Democrat's side. However, let's take a look at Bush's win from the last election, you know, the one with the "Vote or Die" campaign from "P-Diddy" that was supposed to be an ASSURED WIN for the Democrats.

Yet the Democrats, despite the Media Machine's full backing barely won 19 states. So what does it look like this time around with Obama on the ticket?

First, the Democrats will lose even more states. Pennsylvania, and the Guns and Religion stuff won't play too well over there, and so they will probably go for McCain. Also Minnesota has had their fill of Democrats and have an all Republican legislature, so they're probably going back to being a Red State.

On the flip side, there's a possibility that Obama will finally pull Georgia away from Republicans and who knows, he might even be able to clinch New Mexico and maybe even Colorado. Even though he had a big win in Iowa, I think the Reverend Wright stuff permanently damaged his image there, so even though CNN and others are saying he can convert them this time around, I SERIOUSLY doubt that will happen. In addition I think he just might have enough support in Virginia to pull them over to his side this time around as well.

Here's what I've come up with:
McCain 284
Obama 253

Sorry, still a loss Barry. Maybe next time.

Discuss

Operation Drill Bit Inspires Art by Don Meredith

Operation Drill Bit Inspires Art

Thanks to Don Meredith for his original, Operation Drill Bit, illustration that he sent the Schnitt Show.

For those of you who haven't been keeping up with this, we're trying to spread the word on Operation Drill bit. Send a Drill Bit to your Congressman, and one to each one of your Senators. Here at NoSocialism.com, we're also sending one to Governor Christ, since he has put a "No Drilling Moratorium" off the coast of Florida, which I think is a Terrible idea.

There are those who've contacted me and said that this is a terrible idea, since Platforms off the coast will look terrible. The Truth is that if it's more than 25 Miles off shore, we're not going to see it, at least not without binoculars. In addition, China is ALREADY building a platform less than 25 Miles off the coast of Florida on the Cuban coast. So the Chinese can drill that oil but we can't? I'm sorry but I'm SURE that our companies will do a better and cleaner job than any Chinese company could possibly do!

If you haven't done so already, click here to get your Congressman's addresses to send them their Drill Bits. Additionally, if you're doing as I am, and sending one to Governor Christ as well, click here for his info.

See the Original on Schnittshow.com

Operation Drill Bit

This ought to be fun, I'm running to the Hardware Store now!
Operation Drill Bit

It’s time to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and begin drilling our own resources… Now!

• That’s why we’re rolling out, “Operation Drill Bit”…

• Here’s what we need to do…

• Go to Lowe’s or Home Depot or whatever mom & pop hardware store you like, and buy a drill bit to send to your congressman or woman…

• In fact, buy at least 3…

• One for your Representative in the House

• And one for each of your two United States Senators.

• Tell them you are sick and tired of gas prices, and of watching this great country borrow money from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudi’s

• Click here to find the address for your senators and congressman.

• Click around on their web pages until you find their Washington, D.C. office… Don’t send anything to a local or district office.

• Include the message: IT'S TIME TO DRILL OUR OWN OIL NOW!

• Let’s flood Washington with drill bits to let them know it’s time to drill ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico and other domestic resources.

• We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore!!!

To locate your Senators and Representatives using your zipcode

The Failure of HMO's

One night 23 years ago, just before I turned 18, I was walking to the convenience store since my rust bucket of a car wouldn't start (I bought it for $200.00 what did I expect right?). To make a long story short, I was hit by a drunk driver and ended up in the Intensive Care Unit for about 2 weeks. It would take another couple of weeks in a regular room before I would be allowed to go home. Total Bill .... $275,000.00, got the bill shortly after I turned 18, so I was now "legally responsible for it". I had no insurance, only a measly $10,000.00 PIP (Personal Injury Protection) on my car, but
I wasn't driving my car (they paid anyway).
I was standing in front of the mirror in my bathroom, shortly after taking a shower, looking at my shattered face with tears streaming down my face contemplating what the hell was I going to do to take care of this huge hole in my nose, and this massive hole in my wallet called a hospital bill. I could no longer do Tile setting (what I was doing at the time) because of injuries to my back, hell I could barely stand up straight from the abdominal surgery I had just had to put my stomach and pancreas back together (and the removal of my spleen). To top it off, I could just barely use my left leg or my left arm (which was dislocated). I ran some warm water to rinse my face, I didn't want my Mom to see that I was upset when all of a sudden a blood clot on my nose dissolved and blood started pulsating out of the middle of my nose and on to the mirror in front of me. Shocked I grabbed a towel and put it over my face and yelled out, Maaaaaooom!!!
She called the Doctor that did the re-constructive surgery on my face in and he told us to come into his office and he would take care of me right away, he explained to me that he didn't take care of it that fateful night, because he was busy putting my forehead, chin and other areas of my face back together and basically ran out of time after 20 something hours of surgery. After a short office procedure, he took a pebble that had embedded itself in my nose out, cauterized the offending vein and did a fantastic job of fixing me up, and straightening out my nose.
We went to the hospital the following week to see what we could do about the bill. We explained that I was only going to get $10,000.00 from my PIP insurance, and another $10,000.00 from the Drunk Driver's insurance, and that was it, we had no other insurance and no money to pay such a massive bill, and I was unable to work at the time due to my injuries. The hospital then proceeded to contact all the Doctors, they accepted something like 5 cents on the dollar each and the Hospital wrote off their portion of it and that was that. I was no longer responsible for almost $300K in medical bills.
The reason I tell you this story is to illustrate, that I wasn't thrown out in the street. I wasn't refused treatment because I was poor and uninsured. I basically had access to the best health care system in the world. So first things first, let's take the "John Q" image out of our heads, because THAT is not reality.
The video above starts with John McCain's vision of how to fix the Health Care system in the U.S. He is then summarily attacked by the left on the fact that they feel that his policy's don't address things like basic coverage, and 'minimum standards', being from the left they simply do not understand things like 'market forces', it's a completely foreign principal to them. We can only fix the problem, if we understand how we got to the mess that we have today.
People who think we have a lot of economic problems today, definitely didn't live through, or remember the late 70's. Especially during the Carter Administration. We had about double the unemployment figures, four times the inflation rates and Interest rates to buy homes, was 3 times what it is today. As you can imagine back then, people were looking for any possible way to save on their expenses. In this kind of backdrop most people purchased an Indemnity form of health insurance that usually cost about $150.00 a month for a family of 4. The way that it worked was a little complex; you got sick, you went to the doctor, you paid the doctor an office visit. Back then it was anywhere from $25 to $50.00, you make sure you save your receipts or canceled check, done. You got a prescription, your medicine was maybe $10.00 to $25.00, paid for it and saved the receipt. Once you paid out about $250.00, anything over that would be reimbursed to you on an 80% Basis. Once you spent between $500.00 to $2,000.00 out of pocket, depending on the quality of the policy, the Insurance company would take over and pay 100%, up to about 1 Million, again depending on the quality of the policy. Clearly insurance wasn't to be used for the 'minor things' it was only to be used for absolute emergency's. Something like what happened to me.
In the backdrop of the economic upheavals of the 70's, HMO's which originally came out in the '50's started becoming more popular. The promise of the HMO was simple. Your Premium was about the same, possibly a bit higher, but instead of paying up front, filing claims, waiting to get reimbursed, save receipts, all you had to do was pay a Co-payment. See the Doctor, it's only $10.00, go to the Hospital, it's only $50.00 a day, done. There was no forms, no paperwork, no headaches. Seemed like the perfect solution to the Health Care problem. HMO's believed that they could 'manage' health care by providing incentives to the doctors for providing preventative care. An good example of preventative care is Diabetics. Preventative care in this group can have huge cost savings in the prevention of things like Amputations, blindness and other maladies associated with Diabetics. HMO's started having a problem though; whereas before, people would only go to see the doctor when they had a serious problem, like their kids have a fever. Now it's only 10 bucks, no big deal, so they started going to see the doctors as soon as the kids got a sniffle, and demanding Antibiotics to boot! (I'm not even going to go into THAT problem). The point is, people started over using the system, much more often than the HMO benchmarks, which were based on the number of visits people had made under the old system of indemnity insurance, so they had to adjust. The 'adjustments' have been moving skyward for 3 decades now.
A good analogy is to think of your Auto insurance. You pay about $1000.00 a year. If your car is destroyed, they give you the value of the car. Well imagine if congress passed a law that said that your Insurer now has to cover your Oil changes, replace Batteries, Break Pads, any mechanical breakdown, repair ripped seats, repaint your car every few years, replace burned out lights. Do you think your insurance would still be only $1000.00 a year? It would probably triple! At that point, you would probably go to your insurance company and say, hey "I can pay for oil changes I just want basic inexpensive insurance that pays for the stuff that's too expensive for me". They would then say, sorry, Congress says we HAVE to cover all this other stuff. Is this what we've gotten to. Americans are the wealthiest group of individuals on the planet. Your tell me that they can't pay for a Doctor visit, without someone else paying for it?
If you can indulge me for another moment I'd like to tell you another personal experience. I recently called a doctor that had been referred to us to help us treat our son who has Autism. After explaining to me what they do, I agreed that this might help my son, so I asked how much it would cost. He asked what type of insurance I had and i explained that my insurance, just as most insurance, doesn't pay for Autism, I would have to pay cash. He explained that he normally charges $250.00 for the initial evaluation, then $85.00 per session and recommended 2 sessions per week. I told him that I couldn't afford that, and if he could give me a cash discount. He dropped the initial consultation by $50.00, and the per session fee by $10.00. I then asked how many people he had in his billing dept. He said he had 2 very capable girls. I told him, "Listen doc, Not for nothing, but the truth is at the end of each visit with you, I'm going to write you a check or give you a credit card. You're not going to have to utilize your wonderful staff for me, so they can be chasing dollars due from another patient. You're not going to have to wait 2 or 3 months of fighting red tape with the Insurance Companies or Medicare, your going to have the cash immediately to do what ever you want with, Can we drop the Initial consultation down to $150.00 and the subsequent visits to $65.00?". He paused for a bit, but then agreed. I then went further and explained that I take every Tues. and Thurs. off to take care of my son, and my wife takes every Mon, Weds, and Friday off to take care of him, would it be possible that you can teach us what to do, give us a plan, and we'll just come in once a month for him to review and let us know if we're on the right track. He said that was a wonderful Idea, a little every day would be worth much more than 2 half hour sessions a week. If this was all covered by insurance, would I be as motivated to save some money? Probably not, but I'm saving $8000.00 a year, and my son is progressing very well. While YES this is a very unique situation, I share this with you to illustrate what can happen when market forces are re-introduced into a system where for a long time, there were none.
So here's the whole point. The reason the Health Care system has gotten completely out of whack and out of touch with your average person is because as health care costs began to rise, Doctors found it necessary to start hiring medical billing specialists to handle getting reimbursed by the insurance companies. You know, that annoying little task that most Americans didn't want to handle, well it turns out that it's easy for us, because we simply make our co-payments, but it's not so easy for the doctors. As the HMO's made it more difficult for Doctors to get paid, they hired more Medical Billing Specialists, and so of course, they had to compensate by charging more for their services. It isn't uncommon to find anywhere from 1 to 3 Medical Billing specialists in your average practice, and usually those people make around $30,000.00 per year plus taxes and benefits. When all is said and done, that's about $50,000.00 per year in costs that the Doctors have to incur, just to take care of billing. These expenses have to then be calculated back into the cost of the average office visit. A busy office that has an appointment every 15 Minutes, will see about 32 people a day, figure 50 weeks (have to take vacations right?), that's about 1600 patient visit per year. If that same office has 2 billing specialists, you would have to charge $62.50 per visit just to cover the cost of the Billing Specialists, about another $62.50 for the Nurse and Secretary, another $62.50 for Rent and Insurance, and another $62.50 for the Doctor himself, which brings us to the average of $250.00 for an office visit today. Using this example, If we could cut the Billing Specialists out of the equation, that would reduce an average office visit down by about 25%. The question is how do we do this? Some advocate to use the French Model. All insurance is paid via a clearing house, so the doctors only deal with a single entity to process billing. It's not uncommon to go to a French Doctor, and he is the only one in the office. After he sees you, he processes your billing via the Electronic Payment system and he's done. While Initially, this would definitely cut a MASSIVE amount of waste in the system, you're still left with the same underlying problem which is, that someone else is picking up the tab. There's zero incentive to cut waste and excessive utilization out of the system. Once you have your initial costs savings, Healthcare inflation will continue unabated, because again, they're not billing YOU, they're billing some faceless multi-billion dollar Insurance company or multi-trillion dollar government. Once an inflexible and self serving system like this becomes entrenched, it becomes increasingly unresponsive to the individual needs of the patient. Everywhere that socialized medicine has been tried, the end result has always been rationing of care, long wait times and in many cases people dying, while waiting for treatment, either as an endemic part of the system as in Canada, where countless die in huge waiting lists for many 'common' procedures, or in shortfalls in emergencies, like in France where 14,000 died in the heat wave of 2004.

A good friend of mine is part of the problem that I'm talking about here in the U.S. Self employed, he pays about $1200.00 a month for a top notch HMO that covers himself, his wife and his 2 kids. I pointed out to him that he could buy a 'Catastrophic' policy for only $300.00 a month and save himself $10,000.00 a year. he then exclaimed, "yeah, but that has a $5000.00 deductible!" I told him, are you kidding me? You're saving $10,000.00 a year! When was the last time you even went to the doctor? He said he couldn't remember, but decided to keep his plan anyway. People like him are the problem, because since the Doctor knows that HE is not paying him, it's his Insurance company paying, they don't have to be competitive. They don't have to care about what their price is, and only once we get that dynamic back into the system, will we see real change in the way that things are done.

Keeping this in mind, direct payments under $500.00 to doctors from Insurance companies needs to be outlawed. If people went back to the old system en masse to where they called got a quote, shopped around, that would go a long way towards putting Market Forces and price sanity back into the system. A way to insulate people like my friend would be to create a new type of policy. Replace HMO's with MSA's or Medical Savings Accounts. Here's how it would work. Insurance companies can offer it as a package deal and charge the client the same amount per month that they're charging now for an HMO, with the difference being that the premium will only be, like in my friend's case, $300.00 and the $900.00 a month balance goes in the MSA. MSA accounts would be linked to a 401K, and once the balance exceeds $5000.00, anything over that amount would go into the 401K. Insurance companies wouldn't be allowed to make exceptions for things like Autism, like they do now, and everyone should be required to buy a policy, even if it's just a basic Catastrophic plan with no MSA attached. The reasoning behind this would be to keep hospitals from being on the hook for a couple hundred thousand, like what happened to me. This should help to keep costs down. The Poor should also get catastrophic policies paid for by either employers, or by the government if they can't afford their own policy and are unemployed. Smaller businesses of less than 25 employees should have part of their payroll taxes defrayed to help with the costs, based upon the profitability of the company. The poor should also get MSA accounts, funded by a combination of Employers, and Existing Social Security and Medicare taxes. Keep in mind that the Government ALREADY pays for Medicare, and this would simply be a diversion of existing funds, new taxes would not be needed to fund this.
The reason HMO's and PPO's need to be eliminated, is because with about half the population enrolled in either an HMO or PPO, it takes those shoppers out of the market. They are not out there shopping their doctors, asking for price breaks and most of all, those people still require the battalions of Billing Specialists to be employed by the doctors. With the Billing specialists still on the Doctors payroll, it will be difficult for them to lower their prices.
The dictionary defines Insurance as "coverage by contract in which one party agrees to indemnify or reimburse another for loss that occurs under the terms of the contract" Instead of letting us pay for something, then get reimburse us for it, the HMO's have redefined insurance to take on a MUCH larger role in our lives than we would like to admit. HMO's have themselves become a form of "social program" that decides, what doctors we get to see, what specialists we get to visit and what particular things they will and will not pay for. We need to put these decisions back in our own hands and remove this "overlord" type of system that makes far too many of our own personal decisions for us. Switching to a Catastrophic Policy model in combination with MSA's would go a long way towards giving us back our freedom of choice and as an added bonus, better retirement security.

Does the U.S. Government Need More Taxes?

To hear Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama speak, you would think that the Federal Government is in Dire Straights. “The Rich need to pay their fair share” and “we need to invest Oil Profits”. Last year the federal government spent almost 2.8 Trillion Dollars. That figure is a just over a 13 fold increase since 1970. What you don’t hear, is that the government has also had an almost 13 fold increase in recipients as well. Think about this for a moment, in that same time span, the median household income in the U.S. has grown at only half that rate, and while the deficit has definitely gone up, to the tune over 300 Billion a year, it’s still relatively small compared to total inflows.

The reason the Government has been able to get away with this is simple, they utilize politics of class warfare and envy. While the bottom 50% of income earners share of taxes has gone down to a historic low of less than 4% of all personal taxes collected, the wealthy in this country, or at least those in the top 50% of income earners are paying over 96% of all personal income taxes collected, with the top 1% of income earners paying almost 40% of all personal income taxes collected. To top it off, Corporate taxes in the U.S. are at an all time high of 35 to 39%, the 3rd highest in the industrialized world. Only Japan and Germany are higher, and both of those companies have record numbers of factories moving overseas, so the next time people talk about NAFTA and China taking away jobs, we here in the U.S. make it very difficult for companies to make money, and then once they do make money, they have to hand over a third of it to the government. They then wonder why the companies want to move offshore? Most other countries throughout the world tax their corporations at anywhere from 12 to 25%! Ever since Ireland had adopted a low corporate tax of just 12.5%, it has seen an economic boom that has powered it's economy twice as fast as other European nations. Obviously, going the route that Clinton and Obama are espousing would cause more companies to take Intel and Dell's lead and move more operations to Ireland and other low corporate tax nations.

The chart below shows the overall budget between 1970 to 2007, 75&76 are a bit skewed because of accounting changes, but has you can clearly see the amount of cash being collected by the government is at an all time high. According to Pig Book, 17.2 Billion of the deficit spending, was attributed to Pork Barrel spending alone, both the Senate and theHouse are guilty of indulging their constituents.

On Nov. 7^th, 2006 voters across the country signaled their disgust for the system and the status quo with a mandate for the Democrats to clean house. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that they’re listening. Spending between 2006 and 2007 is up by a 4%, adjusted to inflation a 1% increase, but no cuts. Considering the fact that the deficit is only 13% of the budget, a simply slowing spending to say, half of inflation coupled with eliminating Pork Barrel spending would have brought the deficit down by 8%, a few years like that and the entire deficit could be wiped out, without too much pain. The worst part is that we blew a golden opportunity between 2004 and 2007, while the economy was booming, receipts increased by an average of 11% a year, this would have been a perfect opportunity to balance the budget, but instead, spending each year, exceeded receipts. Bush, once again offered more of the same, instead of leadership on this issue, when he issues his proposed budget of 3.1 Trillion Dollars, that had 2.9 Trillion in spending.

Congress Needs To Show Us They Care

By congress' own actions, I would say that they agree with the findings of the Economic Policy Institute, in their assessment is that "Higher gas prices .. incentivize conserving". In other words, they seem to believe that higher Gas prices are "good" for the country, because the force people to conserve and use less gas. The sad part is that by my conversations with people in Coffee shops and people I meet in stores, many American's, or at least Rich American's (I live in one of the wealthiest areas in the country), feel the same way. The biggest problem with this line of thinking is that, as the Economic Policy Institute so astutely observed, it affects the bottom half of income earners the hardest; not to mention the devastating effects these policies have on the world's poor. Gas and corn prices have gone up at least 50% and 100% respectively, since Congress was taken over by the Democrats almost 2 years ago. In other words, we're building this brave new "Green World", on the backs of the ones who can afford it the least. Everyone talks about about oil as if it's passe technology, like we don't need it anymore. We should just move on. NewsFlash! The world still runs on oil, and we still don't have any alternative that is as economically viable as oil.
This morning President Bush expounded on Congress to do something to increase domestic drilling to help the economy. His comments were dismissed mostly because Congress, despite the high prices, seems to feel that we need to focus more on Green Fuels. Unfortunately, they know that Green Fuels can't compete with cheap gas and so they are reluctant to act, even if it's what the American People want. Popular Mechanics did a great story last year, where they show that Green Fuels have a long way to go be competitive with Gas, this is still true even with the recent run up in prices, especially corn based ethanol, which is about 50% higher than last year, due to increases in oil and corn.
On January 28th 1981, Reagan, faced with gas at 3X what it was when Carter stepped into office, decided that the government tried and failed in their attempts at regulating the Oil and Gas business. He decided to let the free markets dictate the price. In the book Envy of the World: A History of the US Economy and Big Business by Timothy, J. Botti, on page 392, the author talks about how, "Reagan dropped all price controls on the industry for the first time since 1971. In addition, he cut Carter's windfall profits tax of 30% on new oil exploration in half". Later, in 1988, after the ensuing Oil Glut, Reagan was able to eliminate the tax entirely, since the Oil industry was just barely making a profit. The U.S. consumer benefited with lower gas prices for the next 20 years! This my friends is what is called Leadership, something sorely needed by our so called leaders today. The reason it worked was simple, unshackled by excessive taxation and regulation, the industry found so much oil, that our reserves during the 80's increased by over 29%. To top it off, in order to compete with the U.S. massive oil output, OPEC, ended up cutting prices to the point to where Oil was as low as $8.00 a barrel!
Instead of following the example of what worked, set by Reagan, here's what congress is doing:

1. Subsidizing millionaire farmers.
2. Restricting Oil Exploration and production.
3. Ignoring Maryland's call to restart the 'Synthetic Fuels Corporation'.
4. Focusing on Corn based Ethanol, which only benefits Agribusiness.

How did we get here? After the Oil collapse of 1985, Oil companies started to consolidate the industry through mergers and acquisitions to become more profitable, and in many cases to stem huge losses. At the same time, OPEC seeing a threat from a more energy independent U.S. Started cutting prices to the point to where it costs less for us to buy our oil, than to go out, try to find it, extract it and so forth. The U.S. not only had excess capacity of Oil, we had a HUGE excess gas capacity as well. If gas prices had stayed high, they could still make money, but by the end of 1985, gas prices bottomed out at about .89 cents a gallon, too low for them to make any money. Through merger's acquisitions (and explosions) we cut the number of gas refineries down do about half today of what we had during the Reagan years, but unfortunately, congress used the Exxon Valdez spill as an excuse to once again, shower the industry with regulations, most of which had nothing to do with Shipping, and environmental spills, and more to do with protecting the industry from newcomers getting into the business. This had the effect of allowing the industry to continue to consolidate, and cut costs, while at the same time preventing any newcomers installing new refineries or oil drilling to compete with the existing business. In other industries, such as Airlines, smaller carriers like Spirit or Jet Blue enter the market to provide low cost choices, where Mergers caused those low cost choices to disappear, not so in the Oil industry. The past few years has seen the merger of Exxon and Mobile, Chevron and Texaco, British Petroleum and Amoco. Where are the new startups to challenge these guys?

Of course, the other White Elephant in the room is Global Warming. Too many of congress' decisions are based upon the whole "Carbon Footprint" theory, that somehow we are causing Global Warming. Before you dismiss me outright, let's keep in mind that the Southern Hemisphere has been cooling about as much as the northern hemisphere has been warming over the last decade or so. Also, 3 of the 5 or 6 hottest days on record since 1890, happened over 70 years ago. There's absolutely no proof that we are outside of normal variations. In addition, the tales of the oceans rising, it turns out were falsified. Even a British judge has said that Gore's movie, needed to be shown with Guidance notes to point out the "Political Indoctrination" and "Factual Errors".

But here we are betting our entire future that this is all correct, when in reality it's nothing more than the latest political fad du jour. A hundred years from now, when the next Glaciation Cycle starts, historians will be saying, "What the hell were those people thinking? Didn't they have the technology to study history back then?" I'll get into that in another post.
Back to the subject at hand, if congress really cares about us, here's what they need to do to lower prices on Gas.

1. Realizing the Industry is cleaner than it's ever been, streamline the EPA process required to get a new site up and running.
2. Reform the EPA to actually allow more Gasoline Refineries to be built in the U.S. (without it costing Billions to do)
3. Restart the Synthetic Fuels Corporation.
4. Offer tax breaks to companies to switch Power Generation from Oil to Coal.
5. Mandate higher fuel efficiency for vehicles.
6. Mandate all new homes be built with Solar Hot Water Heaters at the bare minimum.
7. Mandate higher energy efficiency in Homes and appliances.
8. Mandate to all electric utilities that they MUST buy any available electricity at the same cost, that it costs them to generate that electricity (this way if someone builds a Garbage powered generator, he can sell the electricity back to the utility.

If these policies are announced on the SAME DAY that they announce a stop in Emergency Reserve purchases until the end of the summer driving season, AND a stop to interest rate cuts, believe it would be enough to burst the current Oil bubble that is powering oil up even higher every day.

So there you have it congress, now show us you care!

Recap of references used in this Story on Diigo.

The Democrats Have a Nominee: It's Clinton!

WSJ Reported... "The Democrats Have a Nominee: It's Obama! Other than ensuring the Greatest Show on Earth will continue, does it matter that Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama Tuesday in Pennsylvania by nine-plus points? Barack Obama is the nominee."

This reporting though, fails to take certain things into account. The first is the entire reason why the 'Super Delegates' were created in the first place. It wasn't to mirror what the party wanted, it was created for exactly the reasons that the WSJ stated about the Democrat Party Primary Process, "No centrist can secure the party's nomination in a primary system dominated by left-liberal activists". Which is fine, if left leaning leberals are electable, but as the past has shown us, they are not. Obama, is nothing more than a modern day McGovern, completely unelectable, or did the newspaper not get the news? They wrote in this same article that McGovern (1972), Mondale ('84), Dukakis ('88), Gore ('00) and Kerry ('04), were exactly the types of far leaning left liberals that Middle America won't vote for. Obama is no different.
North Carolina is a perfect example of the massive problems the Democrats have if they side with Obama, According to Rasmussen, even though as of April 5th, Obama leads Clinton by 20 points, over half of Clinton Supporters say they won't vote for Obama against McCain, if he wins the nomination. North Carolina is just one of the 30 States that went with Bush in the 2000 General election against Gore, and they're also one of the 31 States that went with Bush in the 2004 General Election vs Kerry. The WSJ fails to see that in addition to having a huge block of voters that won't vote for Obama in the general election, Clinton has also won the states with the Most Electoral College votes. Ultimately most Obama voters would vote for Clinton in the General Election, which makes her the more electable of the two candidates. Also, Obama voters tend to be younger and less likely to vote than the Older voters that Clinton has.
One last thing that the WSJ fails to see is that both Florida and Michigan's vote WILL count in the general election, and if the Democrat Party fails to take them into account, they will lose the general election.
If the Super Delegates don't see this or won't act on it, then why have the Super Delegate system in the first place? They might as well adopt the same system the Republicans have and avoid all these headaches in the future.

read more | digg story