BMEWS
 

Weekly Lunatic Award

 
 


Posted by The Skipper    United States   on 01/14/2006 at 02:44 AM   
 
  1. NewsSpew: The tax free HSA is the centerpiece of Republican Health Care Reform, a cornerstone of the Ownership Society and now, the CENTERPIECE OF PRESIDENT BUSH’S 2006 DOMESTIC AGENDA big surprise

    Basically, we need to elect politicians who understand Tripod Economics (TE).

    Zandstra, a lecturer in micro- and macro-economics to graduate students and consultant to Third World governments, told the News-Review on Wednesday that neither of his opponents - pastor Keith Butler of Troy and Oakland County sheriff Mike Bouchard - can match his expertise in the field.

    Zandstra, 41, an ordained pastor at Hillside Community Church outside Grand Rapids, has taken leave from his ministry and the Acton Institute, a conservative think tank on free-market economics, public policy and [[[ethics]]].

    Of the three, Zandstra is the youngest and the only one from outstate, which pundits say could bode well for him in the primary in a state where voters have a deep distrust of anything and anybody from the Detroit area.

    Skipper: Don’t go to taxfreehsa.net, just yet.  It’s the doorway to the 21st Century Financial Service Sector.

    Did OCM endorse Jerry Zandstra for US Senate in Michigan yet?  question

    Daily Health Policy Report

    Administration News | Bush Rejects Caps on Worker Health Insurance Deductions Recommended by Tax Panel, To Make Health Care ‘Centerpiece’ of 2006 Domestic Agenda
    [Jan 13, 2006]
    President Bush has decided not to support a plan recommended by the nine-member President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform that would cap income tax deductions for workers receiving employer-sponsored health insurance, according to Al Hubbard, director of the White House’s National Economic Council, Bloomberg reports (Murray/Donmoyer, Bloomberg, 1/12). Under the current tax code, employers can take a deduction for health insurance provided to employees, and workers pay no tax on the value of the coverage. Under the panel’s recommendations, employees would have to pay income tax on employer-sponsored health insurance premiums higher than specified amounts (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 10/19/05). Hubbard said, “I know the president’s not interested in pursuing that,” adding that Bush would instead focus on expanding untaxed health savings accounts and greater deductibility of medical expenses. Proponents of the deduction say that failure to implement it would cost the federal government $6 billion to $28 billion in lost revenue. Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said of the proposal’s rejection, “That is very good news because the discussion in ‘06 should be about ways to expand, not contract coverage.” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Larry Levitt said, “In the last few years, we have seen fewer employers offering coverage and fewer workers getting coverage through employment. Removing deductibility would have only exacerbated that trend” (Bloomberg, 1/12).

    Bush To Focus on Health Care in 2006
    President Bush plans to focus on health care as the “centerpiece of his 2006 domestic agenda,” in part in response to employer and consumer concerns about increased costs, the Wall Street Journal reports. According to the Journal, Bush likely will propose expansions of previous health care plans, rather than new federal spending, and the proposals likely will focus on market forces, tax credits, competition among providers and individual health insurance, rather than employer-sponsored coverage. Bush might propose plans to provide larger tax breaks for U.S. residents who purchase individual health insurance, encourage broader use of health savings accounts and help consumers obtain more information about providers, the Journal reports. According to the Journal, the focus on health care “is intended to give Republicans an election-year answer to many of the worries that voters have about the fast-changing economy.” Bush on Wednesday called health care an “unmanageable cost” for employers, adding that the health care system should have “a direct connect between provider and consumer” and “transparency in the pricing system.” CMS Administrator Mark McClellan said increased information about providers would help individuals with HSAs who “don’t feel like they’ve got enough useful information to make the best decisions about their care.” However, the Bush proposals likely will receive criticism from conservative Republicans for “not going far enough” and from Democrats and unions over concerns that the plans would “undermine" the employer-sponsored health insurance system

    So it’s over, we changed the world, figures snake

    Posted by Z Woof    United States   01/14/2006  at  07:24 AM  

  2. Oh, there you are, Woof.  Haven’t heard from you for awhile.  I wondered where you were.

    Skip, what might this goober have done if his victim had a “C” on his cap instead of an “A?”

    Auburn?  Sounds like a graduate magna cum laude of the LSD Starfleet Academy to me.

    wink

    Posted by Tannenberg    United States   01/14/2006  at  08:07 AM  

  3. I’m a bit uneasy about the sentence.  The death penalty is for those very heinous crimes without extenuation.

    Posted by Oink    United States   01/14/2006  at  09:41 AM  

  4. Yeah, I’m with Oink on this one. The perp was clearly out of his mind when he did all this. Yes, it’s reprehensible and something should be done, but I don’t believe that the death penalty is the right thing in this case. Cripes, delaying the trial while they made him mentally competent to stand trial indicates that he was not sane at the time.

    ZWoof,

    Take it to the forums. Start a disucssion. Link to it from a thread here.

    Posted by StinKerr    United States   01/14/2006  at  03:20 PM  

  5. Whatever happened to all those nice big Asylums for the Criminally Insane?  Oh, that’s right, the Liberals declared them cruel and had them closed only to release dangerously insane people to the streets! 

    Trouble is the medications have nasty side effects and people tend to think the side effects are worse then the mental instability so they stop taking the medications.  Of course, once they go crazy again they lose touch with reality and end up killing someone! 

    What do you do with a mad dog?  Shoot it in the head!

    Posted by MJS    United States   01/14/2006  at  07:17 PM  

  6. Or, they start feeling better and think that they don’t need the medication, so they go off of it.  What happens is stuff like this.

    I’m not a big fan of socialized medicine, but I think that insane asylums are in order to keep some people with severe mental diseases, such as
    bipolar disorder (oy vey, those people are fun to be around when they’re off their meds) and schizophrenia.

    Posted by U2warrior05    United States   01/14/2006  at  11:46 PM  

  7. Correct, OCM, altho even Szasz agrees that “mental illness” will be found to have a physical cause, in many cases.  Just not yet.  Until we have a definite “you got/don’t got it”, disease is a metaphor.

    I recall in the 70’s when liberals also supported shutting down mental hospitals. Problem is, they dumped them on the streets, with an appointment at the overworked mental health clinic.  Total disaster.

    Posted by Oink    United States   01/15/2006  at  07:05 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: School Daze

Previous entry: EVIL STEPDAD'S SADISTIC RAGE

<< BMEWS Main Page >>