Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model - Yahoo! News

"Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's provinces are taking tough measures to curb health care costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system."   Interesting article, that outlines the future of Obama-care, and it is exactly like opponents predicted. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, Socialism is great, until you run out of other people's money.

Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model - Yahoo! News

'One Man - One Vote' - Definetly Not

I was appalled on so many levels by this article:  First that a "US judge" would impose this sentence.  Second, that this is being used in other places within the US.  Third, that there is a consulting company (or companies?)  that is devoted to implementing this kind of tyranny.  Fourth, there is no general upset about this across the nation.  Citizens should be outraged!  This is more of an opposite of democracy than dictatorship, because it it cloaked in the guise of an election.   When an election is deemed to be unfair because the expected racial outcome is not achieved, God help us. 


Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election - Yahoo! News

PORT CHESTER, N.Y. – Arthur Furano voted early — five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate. Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.
Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday.
Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.
Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas.
Furano and his wife, Gloria Furano, voted Thursday.
"That was very strange," Arthur Furano, 80, said after voting. "I'm not sure I liked it. All my life, I've heard, `one man, one vote.'"
It's the first time any municipality in New York has used cumulative voting, said Amy Ngai, a director at FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group that has been hired to consult. The system is used to elect the school board in Amarillo, Texas, the county commission in Chilton County, Ala., and the City Council in Peoria, Ill.
The judge also ordered Port Chester to implement in-person early voting, allowing residents to show up on any of five days to cast ballots. That, too, is a first in New York, Ngai said.
Village clerk Joan Mancuso said Monday that 604 residents voted early.
Gloria Furano gave one vote each to six candidates. Aaron Conetta gave two votes each to three candidates.
Frances Nurena talked to the inspectors about the new system, grabbed some educational material and went home to study. After all, it was only Thursday. She could vote on Friday, Saturday or Tuesday.
"I understand the voting," she said. "But since I have time, I'm going to learn more about the candidates."
On Tuesday, Candida Sandoval voted at the Don Bosco Center, where a soup kitchen and day-laborer hiring center added to the activity, and where federal observers watched the voting from a table in the corner.
"I hope that if Hispanics get in, they do something for all the Hispanic people," Sandoval said in Spanish. "I don't know, but I hope so."
FairVote said cumulative voting allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes and focuses its voting strength on specific candidates. Two of the 13 Port Chester trustee candidates — one Democrat and one Republican — are Hispanic. A third Hispanic is running a write-in campaign after being taken off the ballot on a technicality.
Campaigning was generally low key, and the election itself was less of an issue than housing density and taxes.
Hispanic candidates Fabiola Montoya and Luis Marino emphasized their volunteer work and said they would represent all residents if elected.
Gregg Gregory gave all his votes to one candidate, then said: "I think this is terrific. It's good for Port Chester. It opens it up to a lot more people, not just Hispanics but independents, too."
Vote coordinator Martha Lopez said that if turnout is higher than in recent years, when it hovered around 25 percent, the election would be a success — regardless of whether a Hispanic was elected.
"I think we'll make it," she said. "I'm happy to report the people seem very interested."
But Randolph McLaughlin, who represented a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the goal was not merely to encourage more Hispanics to vote but "to create a system whereby the Hispanic community would be able to nominate and elect a candidate of their choice."
That could be a non-Hispanic, he acknowledged, and until exit polling is done, "it won't be known for sure whether the winners were Hispanic-preferred."
The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. The bilingual ballot lists each candidate across the top row — some of them twice if they have two party lines — and then the same candidates are listed five more times. In all, there are 114 levers; voters can flip any six.
Besides the forums, bright yellow T-shirts, tote bags and lawn signs declared "Your voice, your vote, your village," part of the educational materials also mandated in the government agreement. Announcements were made on cable TV in each language.
All such materials — the ballot, the brochures, the TV spots, the reminders sent home in schoolkids' backpacks — had to be approved in advance, in English and Spanish versions, by the Department of Justice.
Conetta said the voter education effort was so thorough he found voting easier than usual.
"It was very different but actually quite simple," he said. "No problem."

FOXNews.com - Conn. Town Can't Hold Graduations in Church, Judge Rules

FOXNews.com - Conn. Town Can't Hold Graduations in Church, Judge Rules

A Federal judge has ruled that two Connecticut high schools cannot hold their graduation in a Church because it "unconstitutionally entangled itself with religion by agreeing to cover much of the church's religious imagery. She also says the town coerced the plaintiffs to support religion by forcing them to enter the church". What in the world does that mean? "Entangle itself with religion by agreeing to cover much of the church's religious imagery", does that mean if the they did NOT cover the imagery it would be OK? How is walking into a building a form of coerced participation, endorsement or even acknowledgment of other events that occur within the building? If you walk into an apartment building does that designate support of all events that are occurring or have occurred or will occur within the building? How can government inspectors go into a church, synagogue or mosque without entangle itself with religion?
What of the pathetic people who sued to prevent this graduation ceremony? Do they think that they will start speaking in tongues and baptizing people uncontrollably? Presumably they were trying to prevent themselves and others from being exposed to religion. When did this become a right? When did the right to protect people from having to view any religious iconography or setting become more important that the rights of ordinary citizens to go about their daily lives without having the state micro manage their daily lives? Where is it in the Constitution that the rights of these anti-religion zealots can trump the rights of ordinary citizens to watch their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, cousins and friends from graduating from high school? This IS a case of government becoming entangled with religion, but it is due to judicial prejudice not constitutional restriction.

Flotillas and Falsehoods - Mona Charen - National Review Online

Flotillas and Falsehoods - Mona Charen - National Review Online

State C vs State T

Hypothetically:  Governors  of two states, (lets call one C and one T), jogging with their dogs along a trail. Coyote  jumps out and starts to attack dog:
Case 1 state C:
#1. Governor starts to intervene and then realizes he  should stop; the coyote is doing what is natural. 
#2. Call animal control. Animal control captures  coyote and spends $200 testing it for diseases and $500 relocating it. 
#3. Call Vet. Veterinarian collects dead dog  and spends $200 testing it for diseases. 
#4. Governor goes to hospital and spends $3500  getting checked for diseases from the coyote and getting bite wound  bandaged. 
#5. Running trail gets shut down for 6 months while  wildlife services conduct a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is  clear of dangerous animals. 
#6. Governor spends $50,000 and starts a coyote  awareness program for people who live in the area. 
#7. State legislature spends $2 million investigating  how to better handle rabies and how to possibly eradicate it. 
#8. Governor’s security agent fired for not stopping  the attack and letting the Governor try to intervene. 
#9. Cost $75,000 to train new security agent. 
#10. PETA protests the relocation of the coyote.   
Case 2 state T: 
#1. Governor spends $1.23 on a .380 ACP Gold Dot  Hollow Point and he and the dog keep jogging. 
God, I am glad I live in T.

What Do We Believe About the Role of Government in the economy?

The endless effrontery of this administration to force its policies down our collective throats, is ubiquitous. But even in a regime that is so unashamedly self promoting, the scheduled committee meeting to intimidate business into promoting the Obamacare and by extension the law makers who favored it seems egregious. And, yet, I have heard very little comment about this. Certainly not the outcry this planned abuse of power deserves.

From a story on FoxNews.com April 14, 2010. "Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has canceled a hearing intended to grill CEOs who took a charge against profits because of the health care reform bill. The cancellation came after they realized what everyone already knew - that the companies were required to do what they did because of accounting rules. Waxman and others had reacted with outrage and accused the companies of doing it - in essence, to make health care reform look bad."

The fact is that Obamacare ends a tax break that companies used keep drug benefits for their retirees instead of allowing them to go Medicare. The article then says, "The Democratic memo cancelling the hearing notes, 'These one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules. Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles as determined by the FASB, companies are required to take a noncash charge against current earnings to recognize a tax liability for the estimated future tax effects of a new law.'

It goes on to read, 'This noncash charge must reflect the entire present value of the loss of future tax deductions on the subsidy, and it must be taken in the period in which the law is enacted. Moreover, if the level of the impact is deemed "material" under SEC regulations, the company must file the report promptly following the triggering event, in this case the enactment of the law.'"

This is a naked attempt to coerce businesses to act in a fashion that would benefit the law makers who voted for this legislation. Citizens should be outraged about this. This shows a complete lack of ethics. Has it come to this in our history, that we are so cowed by our government that we blithely ignore the open bullying of private institutions for the "offense" of failing to make the government policy's look good? This was unadulterated extortion, should be met with public outcry and government employees whether elected, appointed or hired should be terminated if they attempt to misuse their authority for their own benefit.

What does this say about us a citizens? What does this say about our government? What does this say about our future.

Misinformation about the tax burden

"'We are over-taxed as it is,' Doris said bluntly.
'Well, let's talk about that, because this is an area where there's been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I'm going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have,' the president said." This is start of "The Washington Post" April 03, 2010 article entitled, "Obama's 17-minute, 2,500-word response to woman's claim of being 'over-taxed'".
Poor President Obama imagine his frustration. Here he was taking his valuable time to enlighten the ignorant battery plant workers; when, all of sudden, he comes face to face with Doris and many others like her who are "mis-apprehensive" about taxes. But even when faced with such massive ignorance the President still donated 17 minutes to explain to Doris, the petty factors in her life are nothing compared with the national issues. So while, Doris was merely struggling to say feed her family or maybe pay her mortgage, the President was fighting to keep keep funding national expenditures while the national debt is growing. While Doris was working to repair her car or replace those worn tires, his administration was striving to see that insurance companies were not becoming too profitable. And while Doris was laying awake at night trying to figure out how to get a new or better job; the President's flight on Air Force One was practically destroyed by Congressional reports on government overspending.
When one looks down at the pathetically small lives of battery plant workers like Doris from the lofty height of Presidential peaks, it becomes apparent, that that the "tax burden" of battery makers is just another barrier to the President. We can all be grateful that he took 17 minutes out of his important life to correct Doris' misapprehension.