*chuckle* Instead of more coverage, you get less. Government in a nutshell...

[4est_4est_Gump]

(CNSNews.com) - Inflation-adjusted per capita federal spending went up $822.90 from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2012, according to official data from the U.S. Treasury and the Census Bureau.

Real federal spending also increased $2437.64 per household between 2008 and 2012.

In constant 2012 dollars, the federal government spent $3,176,376,470,000 in 2008 and $3,538,446,000,000 in 2012, according to the U.S. Treasury. (The 2008 spending number was adjusted to 2012 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.)

On April 1, 2008 (the midpoint in the federal fiscal year which ends on Sept. 30), there were 303,381,938 people in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and on April 1, 2012 there were 313,336,712.

The $3,176,376,470,000 that the federal government spent in fiscal 2008 equaled $10,469.89 for each of the 303,381,938 people who lived in the United States that year. The $3,538,446,000,000 the federal government spent in fiscal 2012 equaled $11,292.79 for each of the 313,336,712 people who lived in the United States that year.

Thus from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2012 inflation-adjusted federal spending per person increased by $822.90.

That means that over the past four years, the federal government has increased its spending on average by about another $206 each year for every man, woman and child in the country.

There were 111,115,000 households in the country in April 2008 (the midpoint in the fiscal year) and 114,055,000 households in April 2012. The $3,176,376,470,000 the federal government spent in fiscal 2008 equaled $28,586.39 per household. The $3,538,446,000,000 the federal government spent in fiscal 2012 equaled $31,024.03 per household. Thus from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2012 inflation-adjusted federal spending per household increased by $2437.64.

That means that over the past four years, the federal government has increased its spending on average by about another $609.41 each year for every household in the country.

In order to cut real federal spending in fiscal 2013 back to the level it was at in fiscal 2008, the federal government would need to cut actual spending this year to a level that is $362,069,530,000 below what it was last year.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/real-federal-spending-82290-american-2008

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The United States is a Euro-Socialist Nation
Steve McCann, American Thinker
February 25, 2013

On stage in Washington D.C., starring Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, and the supporting cast -- the mainstream media, is the 21st sequel, since 1995, of imminent Armageddon if government spending is reduced. This award-winning production currently retitled: "Sequestration, or The End of Compassion", has been enormously successful as its plot of good (the American left) versus evil (conservatives and Republicans) has captured the imagination of a majority of the audience.

This theatrical offering is but one element of the overall strategy to attain the primary stated goal of the American left, which is to transform the United States into a Euro-Socialist democracy. The need to reprise this production is really unnecessary as, under the direction of Barack Obama, the so-called Progressives are well on the road to achieving this long sought-after objective, and in fact they have achieved this end.

The nations of Europe and the United States have two factors in common: 1) they are all either confirmed to be or determined (as in the case of the United States) to become socialist democracies and 2) they have evolved into overwhelmingly consumption-based societies, greatly diminishing their goods-producing, manufacturing service, and energy sector (which generates the real wealth of a nation), thus, eroding their job-creation ability as well as the nation's wealth and tax base. Yet the governments of all these countries continue to deficit spend, over-tax and regulate (chasing wealth and job-creation offshore) and borrow in an effort to meet the expectations of the people.

The unspoken and well-hidden reality is that the "West" has finally reached the point of saturation wherein its economies and societies can no longer afford to guarantee a certain standard of living for the citizens of these countries in exchange for their votes. But that has not stopped the governing class in these nations from continuing on this disastrous path.

Unbeknown to the vast majority of Americans nearly all the nations of Europe are presently mired in a second recession in a matter of just three years accompanied by unemployment well into the double digits throughout the continent. Public unrest, while contained for the moment, is beginning to bubble just under the surface. The United States has thus far avoided an official plunge back into a recession, but that is due primarily to the Federal Reserve essentially creating money out of whole cloth as they have increased their balance sheet by nearly $3 Trillion since the beginning of 2008 through buying U.S. government and mortgage debt.

It is the exception that any country in the West is not facing long or short-term insolvency. A cursory review of the National Insolvency Index (10 being the benchmark with the index above 10 for three or more years indicating a severe potential for insolvency and near intractable societal problems) appears as follows for a variety of countries in the West, including the United States, which is now in this exclusive club. (The index is a combination of the unemployment rate and the annual budget deficit as a percent of Gross Domestic Product.)

Graphs and Charts: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_united_states_is_a_euro-socialist_nation.html

The Left in the United States will point to the ever-growing disparity between the haves and the have-nots in society as the justification for their overweening redistributionist program and its continued demonization of the wealthy and capitalism in general. However, the reason for this growing disparity is not the so-called greed of the "rich" but is the result of the socialist policies of the Left and the denigration of the economy which now creates only low-paying service jobs, if any. There is little opportunity for upward mobility as the high paying value-added jobs in goods-manufacturing, production services and the energy arena, as well as an environment to promote entrepreneurial creativity no longer exists.

So, congratulations, Progressives. You have managed to turn America into Europe, so you can stop with your absurd sky-is-falling tactics, you won. The people you profess to be so concerned about will pay the ultimate price and as Peter Ferrara of Forbes asks: "Will America wake up before Obama transforms this formally freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world into just another banana republic?"

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It hardly needs to be said that ordinary Britons and a variety of patient advocacy groups are worried that such episodes will continue if drastic changes are not made at the NHS. And, ironically, the most successful of the “drastic” experiments put in place is that much-hated bête noire of progressives and Obamacare supporters everywhere: privatization. The Mail Online reports that Hinchingbrooke Hospital, “The first NHS trust to be operated entirely by a private company has recorded one of the highest levels of patient satisfaction in the country.”

In other words, the Brits were so desperate to fix their crumbling health care system, they experimented with the private market and it is outperforming government-run health care without breaking a sweat. Hinchingbrooke was, like so many hospitals in the UK, about to go under when a private company called Circle Holdings was awarded a 10-year contract to run it. This is the first time such a company has been given control of an NHS hospital and the results will not come as a surprise to anyone who understands free enterprise.

As the Mail Online goes on to report, “The company running the trust has slashed losses at the hospital by 60 per cent and will soon begin to pay… debts built up over years of mismanagement.” Though will be no surprise to free market advocates, it has been a real eye-opener to the NHS. Privatization isn’t the dirty word it once was in the much-maligned health system: “The takeover deal … is seen as a blueprint for the future of many NHS trusts. The George Eliot Hospital in Warwickshire is already considering adopting the model.”

It will also come as no surprise to those who believe the market provides the most efficient health care delivery model that, in addition to dramatically improving the financial prospects, privatization has improved patient satisfaction. Before Hinchingbrooke was taken over by Circle Holdings, patients had a very low opinion of the hospital and the care it provided. Now, this perception is dramatically improved: “Patient satisfaction has risen to 85 per cent, placing Hinchingbrooke in the top six of the East of England’s 46 hospitals.”

Not everyone is happy with the changes privatization has wrought, however. The people who work at the hospital are apparently unenthusiastic about the necessity of putting the wellbeing of the patients first: “Staff satisfaction at Hinchingbrooke Hospital has fallen since Circle took over, the latest NHS Staff Survey has shown.” Presumably, the hospital staff would like to continue ignoring the needs of the patients: eating their food, taking their medications and allowing them to die because it’s just too much work to do their jobs.

But the socialized model just doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter that NHS staff are disgruntled or that the erstwhile administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was “romantic about the National Health Service.”Nor does it matter that all of the architects of Obamacare hold similarly romantic views about government-run health care. The NHS, as we know it, came into being shortly after World War II. They have had well over 60 years to prove that socialized medicine works, and they have shown precisely the opposite.

Yet, in less than two years, a private firm has taken a government-run hospital on the verge of bankruptcy and turned it around: Hinchingbrooke has gone from being one of the worst hospitals in the NHS to one of the best. It is infinitely better off financially and the patients give it high satisfaction marks instead of living in fear that they might get sick and be admitted there. Moreover, the hospital is meeting benchmarks on waiting times that most NHS hospitals can only dream of reaching and patients — particularly those with cancer — are getting better care.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/25/privatization-shellacs-obamaca

 

[mercury14]

It's a Cut and Paste TSUNAMI!!!!

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

As Mark likes to say, we are a post constitutional republic.

... he says as he suck down Medicare and social security dollars.

 

[ilike2try]

Jesus... you right wing fucks are stupid as a pile of dogshit. Must really suck to be you... losers.

 

[julybaby04]

Governor Bobby Jindal wrote an op-ed recently in the Wall Street Journal proposing that birth control pills be taken out of the political arena by making them non-prescription.

The American association of gynocologists agree with him.

Anyone could then buy them.

Would you support the FDA making birth control pills non-prescription?

I would.

I have no problem with the pills being non-prescription. I am not against birth control. There are already otc that can be purchased (such as suppositories or foam).

I doubt the pills would become otc because it is a political issue. It truly has nothing to with "the right thing to do" as far as what is easier or better for women, it seems to be all about what will garner the most political capital.

 

[hogjack]

... stupid as a pile of dogshit. Must really suck to be you... losers.

Says the "dude" with the hideous cock-AV.

 

[mercury14]

Says the "dude" with the hideous cock-AV.

But his point is still valid.

 

[mercury14]

I have no problem with the pills being non-prescription. I am not against birth control. There are already otc that can be purchased (such as suppositories or foam).

I doubt the pills would become otc because it is a political issue. It truly has nothing to with "the right thing to do" as far as what is easier or better for women, it seems to be all about what will garner the most political capital.

I doubt most conservatives would support BC pills being sold OTC... Where their 13 year-old daughters could purchase them.

BC pills will always be by prescription, at least most of them will. A couple types might go OTC but there are plenty that will not, and insurance companies will have to cover them.

 

[julybaby04]

I doubt most conservatives would support BC pills being sold OTC... Where their 13 year-old daughters could purchase them.

BC pills will always be by prescription, at least most of them will. A couple types might go OTC but there are plenty that will not, and insurance companies will have to cover them.

There are contraceptives that are available otc....whether it be condoms or some type for women.

If a girl wants to purchase any kind, she can find a way. If a 13 year old girl is wanting to purchase pills or anything else, I would imagine there is a much bigger problem than those pills requiring a prescription.

It is strictly political. Just another "catch phrase" to stir up the pot.

If people were honest, they would admit that birth control pills are not the only source of contraception. It is just one that serves to fuel the agenda's in the political arena.

 

[mercury14]

It is strictly political. Just another "catch phrase" to stir up the pot.

If people were honest, they would admit that birth control pills are not the only source of contraception. It is just one that serves to fuel the agenda's in the political arena.

So then you're backing off your support of the Hobby Lobby guy?

 

[julybaby04]

So then you're backing off your support of the Hobby Lobby guy?

I am not sure how you got to that idea.

I believe the birth control mandate that it is covered under prescription drugs is a political ploy.

On a completely separate note, if the bc pills are mandated and the owner of Hobby Lobby does not want to have to pay for a healthcare plan that allows birth control, for whatever moral or religious reason he has, then I support his freedom to do just that......as it is his company and should be able to run it as he wishes.

I know there are laws concerning the safety of employees, the safety of the workplace, earning a fair amount of wages for time worked, etc..... But I see no reason to FORCE a man (or his family....or his board of directors, etc) to pay for coverage of a pill that is not inline with his beliefs.

The crux of the bc pill is that for most (NOT ALL) women who take it, they are using it to for the ease of having sex and not getting pregnant. If a man (family, board of directors) does not wish to encourage that, based on their view of sex per their religious values, it should not be MANDATED to do such.....at least in the United State of America. Other countries may feel differently, but this country is suppose to be free........

And again, if preventing pregnancy is the overriding factor, even those employees at Hobby Lobby already have other methods and products available to them to prevent it.....without this man having to go against what he believes.

 

[mercury14]

The Hobby Lobby guy isn't against birth control or birth control pills. And he doesn't oppose BC pill insurance coverage for his employees. In fact they currently have it.

What he opposes is coverage for the Plan B pill because he thinks it causes abortions. However that's not the case at all; it works by preventing ovulation. If a woman has already conceived it will not work and it will not cause an abortion. RU-486 (Mifepristone) causes abortions but the Plan B pill is nothing like it.

I don't see his case for an exemption to the law. Even the conservative anti-abortion supreme court said he's got no case. So why do you think he has a case?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I'm not sure what The Hobby Lobby is, but "The Hobby" and a "Hobbyist" refers to hookers and the men that love them.

Which probably fits into a discussion about birth control, although the over-the-counter condom is probably a better choice.

Extra large for Johnny.

 

[julybaby04]

The Hobby Lobby guy isn't against birth control or birth control pills. And he doesn't oppose BC pill insurance coverage for his employees. In fact they currently have it.

What he opposes is coverage for the Plan B pill because he thinks it causes abortions. However that's not the case at all; it works by preventing ovulation. If a woman has already conceived it will not work and it will not cause an abortion. RU-486 (Mifepristone) causes abortions but the Plan B pill is nothing like it.

I don't see his case for an exemption to the law. Even the conservative anti-abortion supreme court said he's got no case. So why do you think he has a case?

A couple of things.....

Number one, even in this article, it sounds like this could be seen as a type of "abortion" pill as it could prevent and already fertilized embryo from implanting. It seems it depends on where the woman is in her cycle as to what it actually does.

"As of August 1st of next year, the morning-after pills that must be provided free of charge, from coast to coast, will include Plan B and ella. Both drugs arguably act, in part, as abortifacients — by keeping a fertilized egg (or a newly conceived being) from implanting in the uterine wall. (“Pregnancy” is no longer medically defined as commencing with conception, but days later, at implantation.) None other than Planned Parenthood — a favorite of President Obama — admits that taking a morning-after pill not only helps prevent ovulation but also “thins the lining of the uterus,” adding, “In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.” "

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-mandates-coverage-abortion-drug_581969.html

Research is not fool-proof and new evidence becomes available all the time. If there is a chance that there is an embryo formed, then anything to prevent that (the Plan B) would in essence result in an abortion.

It helps prevent ovulations, but can also result in the embryo not attaching.

Secondly, I believe he has a case, mainly because it is his moral beliefs and HIS business that is being forced to comply.

We all are going to have to suck up the cost of everyone else's contraceptive under Obamacare. I am not a business, but I don't want to pay either (again, back to the I will have make that decision about healthcare when the time comes and I truly see if I have the option of staying private of not).

But yet again, I stated earlier......there are ALREADY contraceptive forms available over the counter, for women who need them. The only reason they want the pill covered is so it is free....well, free to them.

How about those who choose to use contraceptives, especially in the majority that are doing so because they either are sexually active or want to be, how about those people just take responsibility for themselves (including the men being responsible as well) and not rely on everyone else for the decisions they make about their own sexual habits.

 

[mercury14]

A) Progestin-based birth control pills make the lining of the uterus inhospitable for implantation and the Hobby Lobby guy isn't complaining. He's spent four decades providing insurance that covers this kind of pill and continues to cover it today. The Plan B pill isn't any different.

B) The primary way that the Plan B pill works is by preventing ovulation. Conception occurs when a woman ovulates into her uterine tube when it has sperm already waiting in it. If a woman has sex and then takes the Plan B pill the next day she will not ovulate into the sperm.

Eggs spend very little time in the uterine tube, just a few hours. So it's extremely unlikely for a women to have sex, then ovulate, then for the sperm to travel into her fallopian tubes, then fertilize the egg . Sperm takes 1-2 days to get there and if ovulation comes and goes in less than a day, well the woman will be able to take the pill to prevent pregnancy.

That being said, is it theoretically possible for an egg to hang out (intact) in the tube for an abnormally long time while also coinciding with some Michael Phelps-caliber sperm that gets there ridiculously fast, happening at the EXACT hours of the month where this could even be theoretically possible - and THEN implantation being prevented by the Plan B pill? Sure it's theoretically possible. The possibility is quite remote. And even in that remote theoretical scenario it's not an abortion since there was never a pregnancy to abort.

And keep in mind that under normal circumstances about 50% of fertilized embryos do not implant and either pass out of the uterus or deteriorate inside of it. With that in mind the Plan B pill changes essentially nothing.

C) The Hobby Lobby guy isn't forced to provide insurance. He can go with a defined benefit plan and send his employees off to get their own.

How about those who choose to use contraceptives, especially in the majority that are doing so because they either are sexually active or want to be, how about those people just take responsibility for themselves (including the men being responsible as well) and not rely on everyone else for the decisions they make about their own sexual habits.

D) Using reliable contraception means a woman is taking responsibility for herself. Using an insurance plan that she's paying a premium for isn't the same as relying on everyone else.

 

[julybaby04]

A) Progestin-based birth control pills make the lining of the uterus inhospitable for implantation and the Hobby Lobby guy isn't complaining. He's spent four decades providing insurance that covers this kind of pill and continues to cover it today. The Plan B pill isn't any different.

B) The primary way that the Plan B pill works is by preventing ovulation. Conception occurs when a woman ovulates into her uterine tube when it has sperm already waiting in it. If a woman has sex and then takes the Plan B pill the next day she will not ovulate into the sperm.

Eggs spend very little time in the uterine tube, just a few hours. So it's extremely unlikely for a women to have sex, then ovulate, then for the sperm to travel into her fallopian tubes, then fertilize the egg . Sperm takes 1-2 days to get there and if ovulation comes and goes in less than a day, well the woman will be able to take the pill to prevent pregnancy.

That being said, is it theoretically possible for an egg to hang out (intact) in the tube for an abnormally long time while also coinciding with some Michael Phelps-caliber sperm that gets there ridiculously fast, happening at the EXACT hours of the month where this could even be theoretically possible - and THEN implantation being prevented by the Plan B pill? Sure it's theoretically possible. The possibility is quite remote. And even in that remote theoretical scenario it's not an abortion since there was never a pregnancy to abort.

And keep in mind that under normal circumstances about 50% of fertilized embryos do not implant and either pass out of the uterus or deteriorate inside of it. With that in mind the Plan B pill changes essentially nothing.

C) The Hobby Lobby guy isn't forced to provide insurance. He can go with a defined benefit plan and send his employees off to get their own.



D) Using reliable contraception means a woman is taking responsibility for herself. Using an insurance plan that she's paying a premium for isn't the same as relying on everyone else.

Obviously, you have never been a woman trying to get pregnant. I can tell you, women watch their cycles with great interest, taking temperatures, charting, ovulation tests, etc, ....to know EXACTLY when ovulation takes place, thereby knowing the very best time to have sex with a chance of success in pregnancy.

Just as some know this, some do not have a clue. I think the plan B are for the "oops".....

As far as the Hobby Lobby guy, I truly do not know his mind nor thoughts. I honestly have no idea why he is so dead set on not doing this. But, for me, it comes down to this. It is his company....period. He should be able to do what he wants.

As far as paying for insurance, etc.....the whole cost of this new crazy healthcare system will not be covered by what someone pays. As you yourself said, it takes everyone buying in to help keep the costs down. If that does not happen, the costs go up.

When I was on birth control after I was married, we had to pay for it. It was not covered by insurance and we were paying those monthly premiums as well. I did not lobby for everyone to pick up my expense for bc, as it was my choice to use it. We just factored it into a monthly budget as it was important to us until we were ready to start a family.

Again...and again...and again...... there are already methods and products available for bc on the market that women can absolutely purchase anytime they wish. The BC pill is NOT a right! It is something that SOME women/girls want to make their lifestyle easier...and want it for free. It is a political ploy. It is not the ONLY possible way to prevent pregnancy.

Don't make someone else's desire to have sex and prevent pregnancy my responsibility to fund.

 

[mercury14]

Insurance isn't a right but it's regulated.

"Doing whatever you want with your business" isn't a right either. As soon as Hobby Lobby gets involved with the insurance industry they're not just dealing with their own company anyway, they're dealing with other companies. And the products those companies sell are regulated. Nobody is forcing the Hobby Lobby guy to buy insurance. He's free to go with a defined benefit plan instead or even not give insurance and pay the tax. His wisest move is to do the defined benefit thing and just give his employees a lump sum.

If there's not a mandate for birth control then employers are free to determine what health care options millions of women have and don't have. When someone's kid is in a car accident and needs a blood transfusion, well if their employer is a Jehovah's Witness they would deny coverage for treatment. Or if someone needs a new kidney? Can the average woman pay for an organ transplant in cash? Maybe an employer dislikes sex and decides HIV care isn't covered, etc. This would all be at the employer's whim so maybe they cover it one say and then decide to stop coverage moving forward.

 

[julybaby04]

Insurance isn't a right but it's regulated.

"Doing whatever you want with your business" isn't a right either. As soon as Hobby Lobby gets involved with the insurance industry they're not just dealing with their own company anyway, they're dealing with other companies. And the products those companies sell are regulated. Nobody is forcing the Hobby Lobby guy to buy insurance. He's free to go with a defined benefit plan instead or even not give insurance and pay the tax. His wisest move is to do the defined benefit thing and just give his employees a lump sum.

If there's not a mandate for birth control then employers are free to determine what health care options millions of women have and don't have. When someone's kid is in a car accident and needs a blood transfusion, well if their employer is a Jehovah's Witness they would deny coverage for treatment. Or if someone needs a new kidney? Can the average woman pay for an organ transplant in cash? Maybe an employer dislikes sex and decides HIV care isn't covered, etc. This would all be at the employer's whim so maybe they cover it one say and then decide to stop coverage moving forward.

I understand all of the above. Perhaps things will move to where there will be defined plans for companies that want those.....and the coverages you mention above will be well known.

I think at that point, it would be up to the individual person as to whether they want to work for a company that doesn't offer what they fell they will need (insurance related, at least).

I think many people do this in one way or another. Say, for example, would someone who is a Muslim apply for a job (let's say secretarial or something) at a Catholic Church....or vice versa. Would someone who does not believe in blood transfusions, work at a hospital or place like that which does those procedures on a regular basis.

I guess everyone has to pick and choose what they will and will not do, based on their own personal preferences. Hobby Lobby can be the same. If the company decides not to offer bc pills and a woman needs that, then just apply with a company which has no issues with it.

If employment is limited, then the potential employee will have to decide if it matters to them or not. It really does seem to me that the company should have the overriding authority on what it wants to offer or not. The employee should not drive the train....in my opinion.

 

[mercury14]

If employment is limited, then the potential employee will have to decide if it matters to them or not. It really does seem to me that the company should have the overriding authority on what it wants to offer or not. The employee should not drive the train....in my opinion.

When an employer gives an employee a paycheck do they feel responsible for what the person does with it? Of course not.

So if an employer gives an employee health insurance why would they feel responsible for what the person does with it?

 

[julybaby04]

When an employer gives an employee a paycheck do they feel responsible for what the person does with it? Of course not.

So if an employer gives an employee health insurance why would they feel responsible for what the person does with it?

I think you missed my point. If an employer publishes what their insurance will include, and if it is something the potential employee either wants or does not want, then the potential employee does not have to apply there.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I think you missed my point. If an employer publishes what their insurance will include, and if it is something the potential employee either wants or does not want, then the potential employee does not have to apply there.

What you are recommending is prohibited by law.

Are you advocating breaking the law?

 

[mercury14]

I think you missed my point. If an employer publishes what their insurance will include, and if it is something the potential employee either wants or does not want, then the potential employee does not have to apply there.

What if there's high unemployment and few jobs and the woman needs to have one?

What if the employer doesn't have any restrictions on coverage when the woman is hired and then makes some up later on?

When an employer gives an employee a paycheck do they feel responsible for what the person does with it? Of course not.

So if an employer gives an employee health insurance why would they feel responsible for what the person does with it?

No answer for this?