Wednesday, November 13, 2013

In Memory

Name ONE!




The will come!


CNN’s IDIOT Sanjay Gupta: Millions of Americans Losing Insurance a ‘Red Herring’

Truth Revolt ^ | 11/13/2013 | Bradford Thomas

CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Sanjay Gupta, thinks that millions of Americans losing their health insurance due to Obamacare regulations is “a little bit of a red herring,” and, besides, we’re only talking about a “small portion of the population.”
In other news, 1 million Californians have received cancelation notices for the very plans the Obama administration promised, again and again, they could keep...
Tuesday on Piers Morgan Live, Gupta attempted to deflect the in-deflectable criticism of Obama’s bold-faced “keep your plan” lie and worse-than-third-world rollout of his signature achievement. After portraying the administration’s deliberate deceptions as merely a messaging problem, the best defense Gupta could muster was the increasingly more insulting argument that the cancelations only affect a sliver of Americans.
Apparently Gupta hasn’t been keeping up with the headlines. Here’s the exchange:
Morgan: Sanjay, we know the take-up on Obamacare has been extremely low. The White House has now conceded that when the numbers are published, they will be very low. We now have President Clinton really directly challenging President Obama to, if it means changing the law, to change the law to keep his word about if you wanted to keep your plan or doctor, you could. This is turning into a huge mess, isn't it?
Gupta: Yeah, I think there is no two ways about that. You know, I think with regard to this idea of keeping the plans... this is another example of the message really having been not properly, uh, given. And, you know, we talked about the specific thing that if you have your insurance, you can keep it. As you know, and as President Clinton said, that's not true. But Piers, you and I talked about this before after I interviewed Secretary Sebelius. The number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States is medical bills, and a large part of that is because there are really bad plans out there. I think this is a little bit of a red herring. And if you look at the numbers, this is a relatively small portion of the population that we’re talking about—that fits into this idea that they have plans and want to keep them because they are buying insurance already on the individual market.
Gupta then shifted gears to the laughable Pinto-Ferrari analogy, ultimately dismissing the millions of plans Americans had chosen on the free market which are being canceled by Obamacare as simply “not good plans.”
Morgan then turned to his other guest, Dr. Eric Topol, and asked the question at the heart of Gupta’s clunker of a defense:
Morgan: Do you feel... that Obamacare is well-intended...?
To Dr. Topol’s credit, he quickly moved beyond Morgan’s irrelevant question and touched on the ACA’s failure to take advantage of medical innovation. But Morgan’s question provides a key insight into liberal ideology: The only thing that matters to the shallow Left is the good intentions of their elected leaders, no matter how destructive and tyrannical the results of their policies.

Obamacare's Gruesome Fiscal Logic

American Thinker ^ | 11/13/2013 | Anthony J.Ciani

According to President Obama, "health care is the single most important thing we can do for America's long-term fiscal health."  In a gruesome way, he is right. The explosion in entitlement caused debt is the greatest challenge facing the United States, and its origins lie in the retirement of "baby boomers" and a shrinking tax base due to expanding unemployment, which is itself due in part to the excessive debt monetization and taxation required to pay for the current retirees.  Assuming President Obama is correct, how does (un)affordable healthcare solve the problem?

The ACA is a hideously complicated circus of statutory and regulatory rules.  The ACA was itself 2409 pages long (granted, double spaced with 1.5 inch margins), and the associated regulatory documents tally somewhere between 5,000 and 40,000 pages, depending on how you count them up.  Many tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of people will lose their health insurance due to rules and regulations enforced under the ACA, rather than any overt clause within the ACA itself.  The cost of insurance is also skyrocketing, again due to rules.  Keep this in mind: if President Obama wanted, he could order the Secretary of Health and Human Services to change those rules, and people could obtain almost any type of insurance plan they wanted, paying an appropriate price for their coverage.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hello Fire!


Little lie!


On your own!


She's ready!


Good and Bad News


The Emperor


Tell me...NOW!


20 years later




I Wonder...


The Mad Hatter!


I am not a crook...just a liar!


Miss me yet?


The morning after...


Just a few more!


Are you really surprised?




Did You Know?


Will Government Be Able to Remotely Control Your Car?

CNS News ^ | 11/13/2013 | Terence P. Jeffrey

It will be brought to you by the same people now bringing you Obamacare.

In May, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published its "Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles." It pointed to a "continuum" of automobile development that "runs from vehicles with no active control systems all the way to full automation and self-driving."
"Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip," said this federal policy statement. "By design, safe operation rests solely on the automated vehicle system."
To be sure, in a free society, individuals could use automated vehicles to many good ends.
A presentation that a group of Swedish analysts gave at a conference in South Korea in May, which is now posted on the NHTSA website, summarizes the upside potential.
"From an individual perspective the main benefit from autonomous driving would be to recapture the true freedom behind the wheel, the freedom that cars defined a century ago," said this presentation. "At that time freedom was defined by the possibility to go wherever you wanted with your own car. Today true freedom is defined in further dimensions, such as being able to travel and spending time as desired."
"An autonomous driving vehicle could open up possibilities for other activities such as leisure, work and social interaction," said the presentation.
But, if the driver does not control the vehicle, who does?
Last year, under then-Secretary Ray LaHood, the Department of Transportation started a program in Michigan to pilot test "vehicle-to-vehicle" communications systems — or V2V. This is the next step on the "continuum" toward automated cars.
The department's plan for a V2V research project describes the sort of information vehicles equipped with V2V technology would be able to transmit.
"V2V communication for safety refers to the exchange of data over a wireless network that provides critical information that allows each vehicle to perform calculations and issue driver advisories, driver warnings, or take pre-emptive actions to avoid and mitigate crashes," said the DOT plan.
"Data that may be exchanged," said the plan, "includes each vehicle's latitude, longitude, time, heading angle, speed, lateral acceleration, longitudinal acceleration, yaw rate, throttle position, brake status, steering angle, headlight status, turn signal status, vehicle width, vehicle mass, bumper height and the number of occupants in the vehicle."
NHTSA already sees that V2V's ability to track and gather information from cars — and the eventual ability to automate cars — could have applications beyond simply deterring accidents.
"In addition to the potential safety impact of V2V and automation, the agency is also aware that these technologies have significant added potential to contribute to intelligent management of roadway traffic and reduce the burden of highway traffic on the environment," NHTSA Administrator David Strickland said in a speech in New York in April.
How would the government carry out the "intelligent management of roadway traffic" or "reduce the burden of highway traffic on the environment" if the national transportation infrastructure allowed it to track or even prevent the movement of vehicles?
The people who are bringing us Obamacare may not be able to efficiently create and run such a system, but who can doubt they would like to have one?
Back in 2009, at the beginning of President Barack Obama's first term, Transportation Secretary LaHood told the Associated Press: "We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled."
He soon proposed the "livability initiative" — a joint program with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Environmental Protection Agency designed to push people into densely packed housing near public transportation lines.
When asked at the National Press Club if this was an effort to "coerce people out of their cars," LaHood said: "It is a way to coerce people out of their cars."
In 1973, John P. Holdren, who now runs the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, joined with population-control advocates Paul and Anne Ehrlich in writing "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions."
"We believe a federal task force should be established immediately to do the planning and to lay the groundwork for dealing with the automobile problem without great disruption of the national economy," wrote Holdren and his co-authors. "In the short-term, alternative activities must be found for various industries, including those related to the automobile."
"Given the potential of this transformative technology, we have accelerated our efforts," NHTSA Administrator Strickland said of V2V in testimony submitted to the Senate Commerce Committee this May. "NHTSA will use the results from the Safety Pilot and other studies to decide this year whether to further advance the technology through regulatory action, additional research or a combination of both."
Strickland also told the committee that vehicle manufacturers had indicated "full self-driving is several years away."