August 2, 2009

This Is Exactly Why The Government Wants Internment Specialists…

The 535 narcissists in DC return home this week.


Townhall Gone Wild!

There is a revolution brewing because UNLIKE Abraham Lincoln, who gave people the freedom to get OFF the cotton fields, Barack Hussein Obama, the democrats and too many republicans are taxing us right back IN to the cotton fields.

It’s all about power and control. Telling is that they have no clue what price they will pay as a result of trying to control an electorate that has nothing to lose and everything to gain by rising up and shaking off an oppressive, statist regime…

Read your history, read the Declaration & Constitution. Know your rights and state laws.

Yep, a revolution is brewing indeed. And the 535 morons in Washington DC will determine just how literal it gets.

WTH? Maybe the Army Isn’t On ‘Our Side…’

Wanted: Internment/Resettlement Specialist

From the Army’s website:

Internment/Resettlement (I/R) Specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility. I/R Specialists provide rehabilitative, health, welfare, and security to U.S. military prisoners within a confinement or correctional facility; conduct inspections; prepare written reports; and coordinate activities of prisoners/internees and staff personnel.

Some of your duties as an Internment/Resettlement Specialist may include:

* Assist with the supervision and management of confinement and detention operations
* Provide external security to confinement/corrections facilities or detention/internment facilities
* Provide counseling and guidance to individual prisoners within a rehabilitative program
* Prepare or review reports and records of prisoners/internees and programs

Some of the training involved…

*Military laws and jurisdictions
* Level of Force Procedures
* Unarmed Self-Defense Techniques
* Police Deviance and Ethics Procedures
* Interpersonal Communications Skills
* Close confinement operations
* Search and restraint procedures
* Use of firearms
* Custody and control procedures

Level of Force Procedures? Search and restraint procedures? Use of Firearms? Clearly they threw in “Interpersonal Communications Skills” as a joke, because they are completely moot given the other “skills” taught.

Well, this could be for genuine bad guys (terrorists and/or criminals); or considering this administration’s objectives, anyone and everyone who attended a Tea Party or Pro-Life event.

Hope everyone is well-versed on their First, Second and Fourth Amendment Rights…or at least has the law firm of Colt, Ruger, Remington & Glock on permanent retainer.

Your Tax Dollars At Waste

Filed under: Business Moves,Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:17 am

The jaw drops (HT P.J. Gladnick at NewsBusters), as a perfectly good car is trashed:

Repeating the exercise about 222,000 times throughout the country ($1 billion divided by $4,500) is such a great idea that we’re going to do it 444,000 more times (“House approves $2B more for ‘cash for clunkers’”).

P.S. People who are familiar with enviro industrial regs need to help me with this: Doesn’t spilling oil and spewing pollutants into the air like this normally create a hazardous waste site requiring visits by the EPA, mountains of paperwork, cordoning off the area, and removal of anything the waste could conceivably have leaked into?

AP’s Raum Accepts, Further Distorts Deceptive CEA/Obama Small Biz Health Insurance Cost Claim

ObamaCareSymbol(image found at

This post has been carried forward from early this morning.

See if you think these two assertions mean the same thing:

  • Small businesses pay up to 18 percent more per worker than large firms for the same health insurance policy.
  • …. small businesses pay up to 18 percent more per worker to provide health insurance for their employees.

Of course they don’t mean the same thing. But to the Associated Press’s Tom Raum, they apparently do.

The first statement comes from the Executive Summary of a study produced by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) called “The Economic Effects of Health Care Reform on Small Businesses and Their Employees” that the administration is using to promote passage of its health care plan. Based on dated information in the detailed CEA studay, the statement appears to be true, though with overly clever “up to” wording.

The second statement unfortunately exemplifies how the AP’s Raum wrote up the CEA result in his story. This means that his write-up has several items that are demonstrably false.

Here are the story’s first few paragraphs, with incorrect assertions noted in red:


If you go to the detailed CEA study (PDF here), you’ll find these two sentences appearing one after the other on Page 4 (page 7 of the PDF), showing that it also didn’t have all its ducks in a row:

Most obviously, small businesses pay substantially more to provide insurance for their workers. On average, small businesses pay up to 18 percent more than large firms for the same health insurance policy.(6)

The first sentence is not true, but the second may be, based on this somewhat fuzzy chart that can be found at the 2006 study of 2002 data (you read that right) referenced at the Footnote (6) noted in the excerpt:


I have added the boxed calculations on the left to make it very clear how wrong Raum is.

What these calculations show is that, in 2002, what employers were paying for employee coverage at small companies wasn’t very different from what was being paid at large companies, or at all companies taken collectively. Tiny firms were paying 9% more than the average of all firms, while those with 10-24 employees were paying 3% more. Those with 25-99 employees were actually paying less. For family-of-four coverage, rates were virtually equal across the board.

Again, Raum wrote that “small business pay far more per employee for health insurance” and that “small businesses pay up to 18 percent more to provide health insurance for their employees.” Those statements are obviously and indisputably incorrect.

The key difference between what Raum wrote and the 2002 claim is, of course, the addition of the verbiage “for the same insurance policy.” The obvious trouble with that statement is that small businesses don’t buy “the same insurance policies.”

The 2002 study’s authors compared plans in each employer size category in the chart above, and found, not surprisingly, that small-company plans were slightly less generous. They then (I’ll assume validly) used the actuarial quality comparisons and looked at other plan features (co-pays, deductibles, out-of-pockets, and type of plan) and applied regression analysis to come up with what is really a “what if” chart:


The “up to 18%” claim only applies to the smallest of employers, and would only matter if they had coverage exactly the same as that found at large firms. For the next three employer categories the “same insurance policy” costs would be roughly 10% or less.

But the key terms are “what if” and “would be.” The fact remains that small businesses, to remain competitive, appeared in 2002 to be tweaking their coverages to keep their health insurance costs in line — perhaps to avoid overly expensive items, to avoid items they knew their employees didn’t need, or a combination of both. Last time I checked, there’s not a darn thing wrong with that. If small firms make coverage mistakes and under-cover, they lose employees who find greener pastures and/or have a hard time recruiting new ones. If they over-cover, they become uncompetitive.

What ObamaCare would more than likely do is force small employers to adopt the very plan features they have avoided. Mandating costly provisions may not increase employer premiums, if the government ends up controlling a one-size-fits-all market. But in the meantime, premium differentials would inevitably develop, and small-employer premiums would more than likely increase significantly, as the regression results show. As I understand it, ObamaCare supposedly promises small businesses tax credits designed to make up the differences such as these that would almost of necessity arise; but it’s hard to believe they would operate evenly, meaning that net health care costs at otherwise identical firms might be very different.

More important, because of the additional layers of mandated coverage, costs incurred in the health care system by employees at smaller firms would also necessarily go up, perhaps by as much as the 6%-18% noted above in the regression analysis, as “what if” becomes an expensive reality.

So what the administration is touting as the solution to a non-existent “problem” — non-existent because, at least as of 2002, small employers weren’t actually paying out much more for insurance premiums than were large firms — would actually create new problems of differential treatment and escalating systemwide costs.

If they’re capable of it, the CEA, the White House, and Obama should be ashamed of themselves for attempting this gambit.

But as long as ignorant reporters like the AP’s Tom Raum take shortcuts in their reporting to create clearly false impressions about what is really happening — without even digging deep enough to learn that proponents are relying on 7 year-old data, a lifetime in a fast-changing industry — the administration’s claim that state-run care will help save small businesses that are supposedly failing en masse largely because of their health-care burden might actually catch on with the public. It obviously shouldn’t, because it’s simply not true.

Cross-posted at

Positivity: Girl fighting for her ‘right to die’ chooses life

Filed under: Life-Based News,Positivity — Tom @ 6:57 am

From London, England (direct video link):

July 31, 2009 / 03:31 am

A fourteen year-old British girl who fought last Fall for her ‘right to die,’ has changed her mind and chosen to continue her treatments, including a heart transplant.

In November 2008, Hannah Jones made headlines when medics took the then 13-year old girl to court after she refused a heart transplant, which was weakened by her treatment for leukemia. It was a decision her parents supported.

“Obviously we want to have Hannah with us as long as possible, but we are not going to force her to do something that she doesn’t want to do at this time,” her father, Andrew Jones told The Daily Mail.

At the time Hannah explained that her treatments were getting to be too exhausting and difficult. “I don’t like to be like this but I live with it,” she said.

In response to her refusal, administrators at the Herefordshire Primary Care Trust in Hereford, England decided to seek temporary custody of the child in order to “force” her to undergo the surgery. However, after several court hearings and a report from a child protection officer, the hospital withdrew its legal action.

Pro-euthanasia groups praised the girl, while pro-life groups charged that the teen was being manipulated by “death with dignity” rhetoric.

Now it is being reported by Sky News and numerous other British news outlets that Hannah has changed her mind about the operation after suffering a partial kidney failure on July 12.

Go here for the rest of the story.