Rabid Liberal Rants

Here comes the corn industry again:

The Corn Refiners Association, which represents firms that make the syrup, has been trying to improve the image of the much maligned sweetener with ad campaigns promoting it as a natural ingredient made from corn. Now, the group has petitioned the United States Food and Drug Administration to start calling the ingredient “corn sugar,” arguing that a name change is the only way to clear up consumer confusion about the product.

Read more –> A New Name for High-Fructose Corn Syrup – NYTimes.com.

Positive news for a change…

via Student Starts First Tuition-free School in Africa’s Largest Slum | Fast Company.

As much as I don’t like the health insurance companies increasing rates, the one thing that the WellPoint CEO said, during the congressional hearings, that I agree with 100% is:

Unfortunately, the leading proposals being discussed in Washington don’t do enough to control costs” and that other industries “need to be called upon to reduce these costs.

There are no measures in any of the bills proposed that would control the rising costs of health care. Especially in the form of tort reform. Why is there no mention of tort reform? Because trial lawyers, those that benefit from frivolous lawsuits, are HUGE contributors to the Democratic party, giving close to 73% of the time to Dems (almost $179 Million, in 2008 alone).

Have provisions to control costs, then I’ll come on board. Until then, you’re all a bunch of posers.

WellPoint CEO defends rate hikes as pressure grows | Reuters.

AMERICAblog News| A great nation deserves the truth.

“A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer,” reports the AP. The Senate Finance Committee barred annual caps altogether. The merged Senate bill only erases “unreasonable” annual caps. What’s “unreasonable?” Hard to say.

Is it just me or does it seems like the word “Pyrrhic” is everywhere? Every time I read a news article lately, it seems as though the word “Pyrrhic” gets implanted.

Under Sen. Ron Wyden’s the proposed Senate Bill, people who refuse to buy health insurance will be fined over $1000/year.

Called “shared responsibility payments,” the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation.

I’m sorry, I didn’t vote Democratic so they can fine me for not choosing health insurance. As I have said before, I shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for folks who choose to eat fast food three times a day. The cost for these programs will only go up. And they continue to take more money out of my paycheck to pay for these programs. Yet my pay isn’t going up that fast, which means I’m making less.

According to research done by the Kaiser Family Foundation, National Public Radio, and the Harvard School of Health, health insurance costs individuals an average of $4,800 annually. The cost for families to get insurance is even higher, at around $12,000 annually. These kinds of costs would push many people over the edge financially. How does Sen. Wyden propose that we pay for more people who will be unable to afford food, housing and education if they have to pay for health insurance? Effective health-care reform would be better accomplished by other means. Sen. Wyden’s own proposals to switch America from employer-based to individual health-insurance markets, for example, would do a great amount of good by encouraging competition and innovation without making life harder for the people having the most difficult time getting insurance.

Why not have individual health insurance markets? I can choose my car insurance, life insurance, cell phone provider, internet provider, cable tv provider, etc? Competition would create lower prices.

In Europe, where health care is free and state run, many experts say we may be going down a slippery slope.

Europeans have some of the world’s best hospitals and have made great strides in fighting problems like obesity and heart disease. But the system is far from perfect.

“What we can be proud of in Europe is the ground rules, that everyone has the right to health care,” said Jose Martin-Moreno, a health expert at the University of Valencia in Spain. “But the implementation has been difficult and one size does not fit all.”

Critics say the policies are often driven more by politics than science. Last week, Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised that patients unable to see cancer experts within two weeks would get cash to pay for private care. Brown had previously argued against paying for private providers and some say the reversal may be a gimmick to boost his sagging popularity.

A World Health Organization survey in 2000 found that France had the world’s best health system. But that has come at a high price; health budgets have been in the red since 1988.

“I would warn Americans that once the government gets its nose into health care, it’s hard to stop the dangerous effects later,” said Valentin Petkantchin, of the Institut Economique Molinari in France. He said many private providers have been pushed out, forcing a dependence on an overstretched public system.

“The minute you make health insurance mandatory, people start overusing it,” said Dr. Alphonse Crespo, an orthopedic surgeon and research director at Switzerland’s Institut Constant de Rebecque. “If I have a cold, I might go see a doctor because I am already paying a health insurance premium.”

The legislation bandied about by the Dems will require, -force-, people to buy in health insurance.

Senior House Democrats drafting health care legislation are considering slapping an unspecified financial penalty on anyone who refuses to purchase affordable health insurance, a key committee chairman said Monday.

Plus, they want to add more taxes in order to pay for the healthcare they want to provide to the uninsured:

In addition, officials said Democrats are considering a new tax on certain health insurance benefits as one of numerous options to help pay for expanding coverage to the uninsured.

I’m all for providing care to people who need it, and can’t afford it, but there has to be a better way than by forcing the rest of us into buying it, and taxing us on top of that.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s health committee drafted a bill that would require employers to offer health care to employees or pay a penalty and would require everyone to purchase insurance. In addition, private companies would have to compete with a new, government-sponsored, health care plan.

First of all, the government shouldn’t be forcing people to buy health insurance. Secondly, they shouldn’t be forcing employers to provide health care. Let’s see, the postal service is about $2 billion in the red, they can’t figure out how to fix social security, and Medicaid coverage has been bad for many years.  And how are they going to pay for this additional social program? TAXES. Why should I be forced to pay for health insurance for those who continue to eat at McDonald’s three times a day? I’m being taxed to death as it is.

Instead, we should be allowed to pick a choose our own health insurance. Just like I can pick a choose my cell phone service provider, cable TV and internet provider, life insurance, home insurance, car insurance, credit cards, and bank services,  I want to be able to pick my own health insurance provider. Competition would increase and prices would decrease, I’d keep more of my money from my paycheck.

And I thought “Change” was coming. Sounds like it’s the same ‘ol situation. Obama and pals are “outraged” at the bonuses AIG execs received while at the same time they’ve taken the company to the crapper. However, Senator Dodd, as well as Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner knew about the bonus payouts, new they were going out, and even approved of it.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who originally proposed the executive compensation provision, said he did not include the exemption clause, which said new rules “shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009.” In an interview with CNN, Dodd denied inserting that exemption at the 11th hour, and insisted he doesn’t know how it got there. “When I wrote the language there was no such language like that,” Dodd told CNN Tuesday. Multiple Senate Democratic leadership sources also deny knowing how the exemption got into the bill. The mystery isn’t just how what was effectively a protection for AIG was put into the stimulus bill — it’s also how a provision intended to prevent AIG from giving executive bonuses, was taken out. The Senate passed a bipartisan amendment proposed by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R- Maine, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, that would have taxed bonuses on any company getting federal bailout dollars, if the company didn’t pay back the bonus money to the government. But the idea was stripped from the stimulus bill during hurried, closed-door negotiations with the White House and House of Representatives.

And yet now they’re “Outraged”. Senator Grassley even suggested that the AIG execs to commit suicide.

Look, AIG shouldn’t have given out bonuses after claiming that they needed a bailout. But at the same time, we have a bunch of charlatans in Washington who are feigning outrage just because the American people who elected these jokers are outraged. They are reactive instead of being proactive.

A nice article in OregonLive.com, which echoes the sentiment of many, regarding the Mortgage Bailout. Basically asking the simple question “what about all the people who bought houses, have been budgeting, cutting their expenses, and paying their mortgage ON TIME??? What about the people who know how to live within their means?

But back to Mr. Obama and his plan to bail people out of mortgages that many had no business taking on in the first place: He’s making a lot of us who bought homes we could afford — rather than homes that put us on the financial edge — look like complete chumps, has-beens and idiots.

His plan would take billions of taxpayer dollars and give them to banks and investors so they could lower borrowers’ interest rates and make other changes to the terms of their home loans. This is exactly the sort of thing that I worried about when Obama talked to us about being our “brother’s keeper” in his convention acceptance speech. His plan will teach people to be even more irresponsible with money; to acquire more and more and more because the threat of failure is getting lower and lower.

Complete CHUMPS!