Monthly Archives:July 2012

We have far too many other deadly agents we use every day.  The theater shootings are terrible yes..but we have many more even deadly devices inside our homes every day.

Read the article linked in the following page then read the feedback as i debate the author.  After that listen to the the insane society linked podcast episode at the bottom on the page.

https://www.facebook.com/rweldon2/posts/388383477884303

 

Our Insane Society 07/23 by TickerGuy | Blog Talk Radio.

“mayor” Bloomberg has pined on the Colo shotings:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a long-time advocate ofgun control, called on both candidates to address what they would do to help prevent such tragedies.

“No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them concretely, not just in generalities –specifically what are they going to do about guns?” Bloomberg said today on WOR Radio. The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.

 

Gun control is why this murderous assailant managed to kill 20 people and nobody had a crack at shooting him, as they were unarmed.

Let’s look at the facts of this event.  Metal detectors and searches would have done nothing to prevent this, but would have treated every patron as a felon.  The assailant came in through a back door, which means he tampered with a crash-bar equipped exit at some previous time or had “help.”  Those exits are necessary for fire safety purposes.

Reports are that the assailant was wearing body armor.  This would have made him much more difficult to shoot and stop for an armed citizen, but body armor is not “bullet proof”; it is bullet resistent, and if you take a round in the chest while wearing it the energy is still dissipated on your chest — it just doesn’t make a hole.  Continuing to shoot people while being punched in the chest (pretty much what the shooter would be experiencing) would be difficult — but not impossible.

The presence of a bunch of openly-carried or concealed weapons might have done nothing.  A pistol against a guy toting a rifle or shotgun is not a “fair fight” but it beats nothing, which is what the victims had.  The option to fight back is better than no option at all, whether you can or do choose to use it or not.  Oh, and let’s not forget that it appears that Cinemark, the company that owns the theater, appears to prohibit by policy law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons.  If the assailant knew this (and it is, apparently, posted on signs at the ticket counter of at least some of their theaters) then he knew that every patron in the place was literally a walking target unable to defend him or herself as law-abiding citizens are disarmed by signs — but criminals are not.

via Market-Ticker – MarketTicker Forums.

I don’t know at this time…but I’m thinking this NPO has been shutdown for good.  They’ve gone totally dark.  This is never a good sign.

 

Bussard problems puzzle employees, partners – The Frederick News-Post Online.

Listen to this episode from Karl Denninger.  It very well explains what the government can now compel form the american nation.

 

The United States Of Korea 07/02 by TickerGuy | Blog Talk Radio.

Listen to internet radio with TickerGuy on Blog Talk Radio

I agree with vox on this one.  Take a gander at his posting below:

 

First, I would note that Paterno’s actions did not, in any way, make him “an accomplice to child rape”. An an accomplice is a person who is present at the scene of the crime, actively participates in its commission, and has the same degree of guilt as the person he or she is assisting, is subject to prosecution for the same crime, and faces the same criminal penalties. None of this applies to Paterno.

So, let’s take a look at what Paterno actually did, as opposed to the rhetorical exaggerations of the preening moralists who are presently in competition to see who can feign the most outrage:

Louis J. Freeh, the former federal judge and director of the F.B.I. who spent the last seven months examining the Sandusky scandal at Penn State, issued a damning conclusion Thursday: The most senior officials at Penn State had shown a “total and consistent disregard” for the welfare of children, had worked together to actively conceal Mr. Sandusky’s assaults, and had done so for one central reason: fear of bad publicity. That publicity, Mr. Freeh said Thursday, would have hurt the nationally ranked football program, Mr. Paterno’s reputation as a coach of high principles, the Penn State “brand” and the university’s ability to raise money as one of the most respected public institutions in the country….

Mr. Freeh’s investigation makes clear it was Mr. Paterno, long regarded as the single most powerful official at the university, who persuaded the university president and others not to report Mr. Sandusky to the authorities in 2001 after he had violently assaulted another boy in the football showers.

What is new here is that whereas before we knew that Paterno had reported Sandusky’s actions to the correct authorities, now we know that he was the one primarily responsible for matters not going any further. Whereas before it appeared that his only failing was the excusable moral one of doing no more than his legally defined duty, now we know that he was the main instigator of the coverup. This is a very different thing, and I note that it is actually considerably worse than anything Paterno’s most vehement critics accused him of doing previously.

And yes, it does change my opinion to a certain extent. In light of the latest revelations, I think it would be appropriate for the Penn State football program to receive the death sentence for three or four years from the NCAA. That would send the most unmistakable message to everyone, and would be the one punishment that Paterno would have felt most deeply. How Penn State chooses to respond is really no concern of mine, but as a general rule, I don’t favor whitewashing history. If I were the responsible individual at Penn State, I would not remove Paterno’s name from the various buildings he funded and tear down his statue, but rather seek to use him as an example to teach about the dangers that hubris poses to even the most upstanding and successful.

All men are fallen. I still think Paterno was, for the most part, a good man who made a very foolish and counterproductive attempt to protect his reputation and his football program. Was it wrong? Certainly. Did it have evil consequences? Most likely. Does it merit a harsh punishment? Definitely. But was it indicative of an evil or malevolent intent? I don’t believe so, and to conflate the moral failings of a Paterno with the overt and predatory evil of a Sandusky is a fundamental mistake. It is important to remember that this is not simply a Joe Paterno scandal, but rather a Penn State scandal.

The Freeh report is somewhat ironic in that Louis Freeh would certainly know a coverup when he sees one, given his involvement in similar whitewashes of Ruby Ridge and Waco.

via Vox Popoli.

Here Are The New Taxes You’re Going To Pay For Obamacare | Daily Ticker – Yahoo! Finance.

Take a look at this thing during it’s travels across our country..wow!

 

120629-30_g13_ir_derecho_anim.gif (1280×960).

What a great piece of Satire in regards to Global Warming!

 

CRAZIEST weather report from CBS Richmond Virginia – YouTube.

I am going to cross post this to both blogs as this affects me both as a person and a business man.

 

Now consider this — the PPACA sets forth a “fine” (tax) of $2,000 per employee for a business that has 50 or more and does not provide “at least” the minimum “insurance” to all.

There is no health care plan I’m aware of that a business can buy today that costs less than $2,000 per employee per year, and which also meets the requirements in the law.  None.  That was almost impossible to meet back in 1995 for a healthy, 18 year old insured single male.  It’s flatly impossible now and it’s doubly-so if your workforce has other than 18-year old single, healthy males in it.  I know this to be factual because I was responsible for buying it for our employees as a CEO of a company.

Therefore the incentive is for all businesses to drop health care. 

Period.

Second, your choice is to either (1) buy and have said plan (whether through employment or individually) or pay a “fine” (tax) of 1% of income (increasing to 2.5% of AGI in 2016.)  The minimum “fine” is $95 starting in 2013, rising to $695 in 2016.  The average family income is about $50,000/year, which means that the fine (tax) will be $1,250 in 2016.  It’s less now.

You cannot buy health insurance at their “minimum level” for anything approaching $1,250 a year no matter how healthy you are at any age. 

The law prohibits insurance companies from charging you more if you’re sick, or refusing to cover you at all.  They must accept everyone on equal terms.

Therefore:

Businesses will drop coverage; it’s cheaper (by far) for them to pay the fine and, for those under 133% of the federal poverty level, those employees can go onto Medicaid.  This is a “family of four” income of $31,900 (as of today; it will go up of course.)  That’s roughly the second quintile.

Individuals will drop coverage and pay the fine, since it’s far cheaper than to buy the “insurance.”

Both will buy the “insurance” only when they get sick, since they cannot be upcharged.

The cost of “insurance” will thus skyrocket to 10x or more what it costs now, just as it would if you bought auto insurance only after you wrecked or homeowners insurance only after you had a fire.

At the higher price nobody will be able to afford to buy the insurance at all, since that will be indistinguishable from just paying for whatever is wrong with you, plus the insurance company markup.

In very short order the entire medical system and health insurance scheme will collapse, leaving only two choices — either a return to free market principles (including all I’ve argued for since this debate began) or a single-payer, fully-socialized system ala Canada.

You can bet the government will continue to try to change the terms of the deal — including ramping up the tax/fine and other games, to prevent this outcome, but they will fail.

Now the question becomes this:

Which Presidential political candidates have told you the above, and what are their answers to this dilemma?

Let’s go down the list.

We know what Obama’s is — he passed it.  You will lose your private health care under Obama.  Period.  We are headed for a fully-socialized medical system and a collapse of the current medical paradigm under Obama.

We know what Gary Johnson’s position is — he wants to “block grant” all Medicare and Medicaid to the states, cut the amount of money in the budget (all line items) 43% and repeal Obamacare (including the mandate.)  But he refuses to demand an end to the cost-shifting where Juanita the illegal Mexican immigrant who is 7-1/2 months pregnant while drug and alcohol dependent shows up in the hospital, in labor, and foists off a $2.5 million NICU and birth expense bill on you!  He also refuses to stop the drug companies from effectively forcing Americans to bear the cost of all drug and device development and he has refused to put a stop to differential billing.  The latter two only exist because of explicit federal laws that make lawful in the health industry market behaviors that are illegal in virtually every other line of work (see The Sherman Act, The Clayton Act, and Robinson-Patman for starters.)  All of these facts are why the costs are ramping in the first place, which means his plan will simply force the States into bankruptcy and continue screwing you at the same time.

We don’t know what Romney’s plan is in detail.  He’s been oddly silent in that regard.  He says “Obamacare is not the answer” but he passed it as Governor on a state basis!  He too advocates nothing to put a stop to the cost-shifting and anti-competitive acts of drug and device makers nor hospitals and other medical providers.  He too wants to block grant Medicaid but that does nothing to address the problem and will simply bankrupt the state budgets (as noted for Johnson.)   Conspicuously absent from Romney’s plan (as is true for Johnson) is (1) a repeal of EMTALA, (2) a demand for level, consistent pricing irrespective of how one pays for a service (3) and a demand to remove anti-competitive laws protecting differential billing across state and national boundaries (e.g. Viagra for $2 in Canada .vs. $20 here) so that Americans are not forced to subsdize everyone else in the world and you pay the same price as the guy next to you in the hospital for the same product or service, instead of 2x, 3x, 5x, or even 100x as much.

So we have three Presidential candidates, none of which will do a damn thing to fix what’s wrong with health care.  All three are promoting a path that will bankrupt the States, bankrupt the Federal Government, bankrupt you or all three.

via PPACA And The Death Of Medical Care (And Choice) in [Market-Ticker].