HOW OBAMACARE WILL HURT YOUNG PEOPLE

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

12.17.2009

A detailed analysis of the Obama health care program now before the Senate indicates that it will force big premium increases for all families especially for those under 30 years of age.

The study, by the consulting firm of Oliver Wyman, concludes that premiums for individuals will rise by $1,576 and $3,341 for families by under the bill. Young people will be hit the hardest. The study predicted that premiums for new health insurance policies purchased by the youngest third of the population would rise by 35% under the bill.

These increases will stem from the bill’s provisions that bar insurance companies from raising rates on sick people and from excluding people based on pre-existing conditions. Both of these mandates will mean higher costs for the younger and healthier population. This bill is, in effect, a tax on the young.

Nor will subsidies do much to mitigate the impact. To get a subsidy under the bill you have to earn less than about $80,000 a year (combined household income) and have spent between 2 and 10 percent of your income on premiums.

So a couple making a combined income of $40,000 would have to pay about 5% of their income: $2,000 before they could get subsidies. Those making $60,000 would have to pay about 8% of their income — $4800 – before they could get a subsidy. And those making $80,000 would have to chip in 10% of their income — $8,000 – before they would get a subsidy.

These are hefty bills for young families to bear.

So most won’t do it. The fine for failing to have health insurance is only $750. So most young people will just pay the fine and be done with it. When they get sick, they’ll get covered and the insurance company can’t charge them a higher premium than it would have charged when they were healthy. And it can’t turn them away.

So this bill is not a measure for full national health insurance coverage. At best, it’s a bill that will insure you when you are sick and make the rest of us pay the bill. And, in the meantime, you’ll have to chip in $750 a year for the privilege.

Employers, too, will find it much cheaper to pay the $750 per employee than to buy insurance.

Ironically, there is a good chance that this bill will actually increase the number of uninsured. Its ban on letting insurers raise rates on sick people will force premiums so high that many people will drop their insurance. After all, when they get sick, they can and will easily get their insurance back.

Serving U.S troops could face prison if they fall pregnant while active

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 5:45 PM on 20th December 2009

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1237333/Serving-U-S-troops-face-prison-fall-pregnant-active.html#ixzz0aLzMWqKf

A top US commander is threatening soldiers who fall pregnant on active service with jail.

Under the new policy, troops expecting a baby face court martial and a possible prison term – and so do the men who made them pregnant.

And the rule applies to married couples at war together, who are expected to make sure their love lives do not interfere with duty.

Usual US Army policy is to send pregnant soldiers home from combat zones within 14 days.

But Major General Anthony Cucolo, who runs US operations in northern Iraq, issued the new orders because he said he was losing too many women with critical skills.

He needed the threat of court martial and jail time as an extra deterrent, he said.

All troops under his command are covered by the extension to the military’s legal code – the first time the US Army has made pregnancy a punishable offence.

Active soldiers who fall pregnant would be imprisoned under new proposals

More…

• I won’t go soft on Iraq witnesses, warns inquiry chairman Chilcot
• £259,000: Just two weeks into our appeal, what Daily Mail readers have raised for our troops

‘I’ve got a mission to do, I’m given a finite number of soldiers with which to do it and I need every one of them,’ Maj Gen Cucolo said.

‘So I’m going to take every measure I can to keep them all strong, fit and with me for the twelve months we are in the combat zone.’

Married soldiers on active service should either put their love lives on hold or take precautions. It was a ‘black and white’ issue, he said.

Legal experts said the policy raised serious ethical questions.

‘Here you really have issues that go to the core of personal integrity: reproductive rights,’ said Eugene Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School and is president of America’s National Institute of Military Justice.

The prohibition was fraught with ‘a mare’s nest of legal, ethical and policy issues’ highlighting the discord between personal autonomy and military needs, he said.

‘You have to assume it’s in response to a number of incidents that have caused female GIs to be sidelined at a time when they can’t be spared.’ Maj Gen Cucolo commands the US Army’s division north in Iraq, including Balad, Mosul, Tikrit, Samarra and Kirkuk.

Court martial for pregnancy is not an Army-wide policy but division commanders have the authority to impose such restrictions, a Pentagon spokesman said.

Under Maj Gen Cucolo’s order, troops also are prohibited from ‘sexual contact of any kind’ with Iraqi nationals.

And they cannot spend the night with a member of the opposite sex, unless married or with express permission.

The order outlines 20 barred activities, mostly to keep order and stem criminal activity, such as selling a weapon or taking drugs.

But other restrictions aim to stop soldiers leaving their unit short- handed, including becoming pregnant or undergoing elective surgery that would prevent their deployment.

The order does not specify how long any jail term should be.

‘When a soldier becomes pregnant or causes a soldier to become pregnant through consensual activity, the redeployment of the pregnant soldier creates a void in the unit and has a negative impact on the unit’s ability to accomplish its mission,’ an Army spokesman said.

‘Another soldier must assume the pregnant soldier’s responsibilities.’

British Army policy is to send pregnant troops home, a Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1237333/Serving-U-S-troops-face-prison-fall-pregnant-active.html#ixzz0aLz7HIOG

18 U.S.C. § 201 : US Code – Section 201: Bribery of public officials and witnesses

Search 18 U.S.C. § 201  : US Code - Section 2


Bribery of public officials and witnesses

(a) For the purpose of this section -
(1) the term "public official" means Member of Congress,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such
official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person
acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department,
agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of
Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any
such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term "person who has been selected to be a public
official" means any person who has been nominated or appointed to
be a public official, or has been officially informed that such
person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term "official act" means any decision or action on any
question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which
may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before
any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in
such official's place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever -
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises
anything of value to any public official or person who has been
selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any
public official or any person who has been selected to be a
public official to give anything of value to any other person or
entity, with intent -
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been
selected to be a public official to commit or aid in
committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make
opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United
States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has
been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any
act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public
official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks,
receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of
value personally or for any other person or entity, in return
for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to
collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the
commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of
the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or
promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises
such person to give anything of value to any other person or
entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or
affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a
trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any
committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any
agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the
United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent
to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives,
accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value
personally or for any other person or entity in return for being
influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness
upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return
for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times
the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is
greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both,
and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust,
or profit under the United States.
(c) Whoever -
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge
of official duty -
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises
anything of value to any public official, former public
official, or person selected to be a public official, for or
because of any official act performed or to be performed by
such public official, former public official, or person
selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or
person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as
provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty,
directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or
agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or
because of any official act performed or to be performed by
such official or person;
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything
of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under
oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a
witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any
court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress,
or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of
the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or
because of such person's absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts,
or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for
or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to
be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial,
hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person's
absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than
two years, or both.
(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2)
and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the
payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment,
by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a
witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred
and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such
trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses,
a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion,
and in appearing and testifying.
(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are
separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503,
1504, and 1505 of this title.

Updated: Tell Your Senators and Neighbors This, about Obamacare, Now

Investigating Obama

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Update (questions, really)

Government is putting an authoritarian gun to your head, to rob you, to make you pay for someone else’s healthcare. At the same time, it is poised to begin dictating what healthcare you and others will be allowed to receive. It is sapping away your own ability to provide for yourself and your family. What are you doing about it?

Have you called your senators again, this week? Or, Email? Or, Monday? Does anyone know if the Republicans get it, that they are being held accountable to use every parliamentary procedure necessary to prevent this bill from passing? — or else.

I don’t see from here, that they have truly gotten the message yet.

And for those like me, with “Democratic” senators, I humbly suggest a message less complicated, below.

Arlen

____________

Have you called your Republican senators yet, to let them know their cover is blown? If you do not know what that means, see this article: “U.S. Senate Republicans Outed: Their Mere ‘No’ Votes are ‘Yes’ Votes for Obamacare.”

Here is a number to call: 1-800-828-0498. (It is free number used by the Soros-backed anti-Americans, but go ahead and spend their money; never mind their message, just wait for the forward to the U.S. Capitol switchboard.) If you can not get through, phone numbers are listed in the U.S. Senate directory, here.

It appears that Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma for one, is getting the word. See the AP article, “Health Care Overhaul Bill Slowed by Read-A-Thon,” excerpted here:

To make matters more complicated, the Senate stumbled into health care gridlock after a Republican senator forced the clerk to read aloud a 767-page amendment.

GOP Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had sought approval to require that any amendment considered by the Senate must be offered 72 hours in advance and with a full cost report.

When he was rebuffed by Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, Coburn invoked his right to require that an amendment by another Democrat be read aloud. That sent the Senate into limbo, since the amendment by Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders is 767 pages long. It calls for guaranteeing coverage to all through a public program similar to Medicare.

If you still need to know what is wrong with Obamacare, see this article. If you have already called your senators, call them again, anyway.

Let the Republicans know, if they do not block Obamacare with parliamentary procedures, their GOP is d-o-n-e. (See this.)

Let the Democrats know, the American People are learning that a vote for Obamacare is a vote for truly violent, authoritarian revolution and they will be brought down in shame. (See this.)

Send this information to all you know and let them see and do the same.

No excuses. Now is the time: 1-800-828-0498

Then, please come back for an article about how we can actually cement-in our counterrevolution for the authentic, constitutional America for which so many have died, so you would also pass that astounding gift and charge along.

Obama raced clock, chaos, comedy for climate deal

By Charles Babington and Jennifer Loven, Associated Press Writers , On Saturday December 19, 2009, 6:23 pm EST

As clock ticked in Copenhagen, Obama raced from room to room, bent on a deal

AP – President Barack Obama speaks on climate change and healthcare reform in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White …

By Charles Babington and Jennifer Loven, Associated Press Writers , On Saturday December 19, 2009, 6:23 pm EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — It was almost unthinkable. The president of the United States walked into a meeting of fellow world leaders and there wasn’t a chair for him, a sure sign he was not expected, maybe not even wanted.

Barack Obama didn’t pause, however. “I’m going to sit by my friend Lula,” he said, moving toward Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

A Brazilian aide gave the U.S. president his chair, and Obama spent the next 80 minutes helping craft new requirements for disclosing efforts to fight global warming. Along with India, South Africa and Brazil, the key member in the room was China, which recently surpassed the U.S. as the world’s top emitter of heat-trapping gasses.

At the table this time for China was Premier Wen Jiabao, not an underling as before. Obama was bent on striking a deal before flying home to snowbound Washington.

He would later hail the achievement as a breakthrough. But even Obama said there was much more to do, and climate authorities called Copenhagen’s results a modest step in the global bid to curb greenhouse gasses that threaten to melt glaciers and flood coastlines.

Obama’s 15-hour, seat-of-the-pants dash through Copenhagen was marked by doggedness, confusion and semi-comedy. Constrained by partisan politics at home, and quarrels between rich and poor nations abroad, he was determined to come home with a victory, no matter how imperfect.

Experts and activists may debate its significance for years. Some, like Jeremy Symons, who watched the talks for the National Wildlife Federation, said it was “high drama and true grit on the part of the president that delivered the deal.”

Others were far less kind. The Copenhagen agreements are “merely the repackaging of old and toothless promises,” said Asher Miller, executive director of the Post Carbon Institute.

Even though a weary, bleary-eyed Obama had added six hours to his planned nine-hour visit, he was back in Washington by the time delegates at the 193-nation summit approved the U.S.-brokered compromises on Saturday. The agreements will give billions of dollars in climate aid to poor nations, but they do not require the world’s major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.

This account of Obama’s hectic day is based on dozens of interviews and statements by key players from numerous countries.

Obama was thrown off schedule almost from the moment he landed Friday morning in Copenhagen, where the summit’s final-day talks seemed to be collapsing.

Instead of attending a planned meeting with Denmark’s prime minister, he plunged into an emergency session of about 20 nations, big and small, wealthy and poor. Right away there was a troubling sign.

China was the only nation to send a second-tier official: vice foreign minister He Yafei instead of Premier Wen, who was in the building. The snub baffled and annoyed delegates.

For months, Obama had been pressing China to put into writing its promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama later seemed unusually animated when he alluded indirectly to China in a short, late-morning speech to the full conference.

“I don’t know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments,” he said. “That doesn’t make sense.”

Things then appeared to turn for the better, as Obama and Wen met privately, as scheduled, for 55 minutes. A U.S. official said they took a step forward as they discussed emissions targets, financing and transparency.

The two leaders directed aides to work on mutual language, and Obama’s team proposed specific wording meant to solidify China’s promise to be more forthcoming about its anti-pollution efforts.

A short time later, however, the U.S. team was more baffled and irked than before. At a follow-up session of the morning’s big meeting, the Chinese sent an even lower-ranking envoy in Wen’s place.

An irritated Obama told his staff, “I don’t want to mess around with this anymore, I want to just talk with Premier Wen,” according to a senior administration official who spoke on background to discuss sensitive diplomatic issues.

By now night had fallen, and it was clear Obama would be late getting home. He kept an appointment to discuss arms control with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Meanwhile he asked aides to try to set up a final one-on-one meeting with Wen, and a separate meeting with leaders of India, Brazil and South Africa. He hoped these fast-growing nations, which had been loosely aligned with China on many of the key issues, might influence the Chinese.

Confusion reigned. Chinese officials said Wen was at his hotel and his staff was at the airport. The same was said of top Indian officials, but nothing was clear.

South African President Jacob Zuma agreed to meet with Obama, then canceled when he heard the Indian leader was away, and Brazil would attend only if India did.

The Chinese said Wen could meet with Obama at 6:15 p.m., then changed it to 7 p.m. Obama used the time to talk strategy with the leaders of France, Germany and Great Britain.

Meanwhile, a four-nation negotiating team known as BASIC gathered. The modified acronym reflected its members: Brazil, South Africa, India and China.

Obama was unaware, however, thinking he was going to meet alone with Wen. After some confusion about who had access to the room, White House aides told the president that Wen was inside with the leaders of the three other countries, apparently working on strategy.

“Good,” Obama said as he walked through the door. “Mr. Premier, are you ready to see me?” he called out. “Are you ready?”

Inside he found startled leaders and no chair to sit in.

U.S. officials denied that Obama crashed the party, saying he simply showed up for his 7 p.m. meeting with Wen and found the others there.

Whatever the meeting’s original purpose, Obama used it to help strike an agreement on ways to verify developing nations’ reductions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, a good U.S. ending to their talks with the Chinese.

Other agreements that came from Copenhagen were a mixed bag, with some environmentalists keenly disappointed, and probably no nation entirely pleased.

Rich countries vowed to provide $30 billion in emergency climate aid to poor nations in the next three years, and set a goal of eventually channeling $100 billion a year to them by 2020.

The summit’s final document said carbon emissions should be reduced enough to keep the increase in average global temperatures below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) since preindustrial times. But average temperatures already have risen 0.7 degrees C (1.3 degrees F) since then.

The nations most vulnerable to climate change, including low-lying islands, say the 2 degree C figure is already too high.

It was just after 1 a.m. EST Saturday when Air Force One landed outside Washington on the flight from Copenhagen. With a steady snow falling, Obama headed for the White House. It would be 3 1/2 more hours before the 193 nations, with a few objections, would agree to the deal brokered by the American president. A short time later the conference adjourned.

Later Saturday, Obama put the best face possible on the results.

“This breakthrough lays the foundation for international action in the years to come,” he said from the White House Diplomatic Reception Room.

But he got no plaudits in the Chinese press.

The English-language China Daily newspaper called Obama’s Copenhagen speech “grandstanding,” and said it left non-governmental organizations at the summit disappointed.

Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein, Michael Casey and Charles Hutzler in Copenhagen; H. Josef Hebert in Washington; and Cara Ana in Beijing contributed to this report.