2010-07-29T21:25:37Z Information Resource Network info@informationresourcenetwork.com Copyright 2010, Information Resource Network info@informationresourcenetwork.com SPHPBLOG
History in the making, indeed. The 40,000 constituents who signed the Senate Conservatives Fund's Repeal ObamaCare Pledge in the first 24 hours since the House passed Obamacare suggest that historic efforts are about to be made to kill this bill before it can inflict its intended and unintended damage.

Here's a roadmap of priorities for Obamacare opponents in and out of Washington, to get us from this dispiriting week to January 2013:

1. Challenge the constitutionality of H.R. 3962. Work to invalidate its requirement that all individuals purchase a good or service-in this case, health care-as a condition of being alive, something the federal government has never forced its citizens to do. Contest the federal government's ability to unload an unfunded mandate onto states, many of which are experiencing budgetary crises and couldn't afford a new permanent entitlement even if they wanted one.

2. Encourage states to file lawsuits against the bill. Twelve states have already pledged to do so, including Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, Alabama, North Dakota, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. H.R. 3962, unlike many other comprehensive bills passed before by Congress, fortunately contains no severability clause that leaves the remainder of the bill intact if one part is struck down in court. Thus, getting a court to nullify just one part of this bill would overturn the entire thing. Take these court challenges all the way to the Supreme Court.

See Twelve Ways to Stop Obamacare from Political International And Religious Issues for the full article.]]> http://www.informationresourcenetwork.com/index.php?entry=entry100406-113003 2010-04-06T00:00:00Z 2010-04-06T00:00:00Z
For over 30 years, environmentalists in Congress have prevented drilling for oil in US coastal waters, our oil-rich Outer Continental Shelf. In Alaska, the ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), can deliver over a million barrels of oil a day - also blocked. All that is needed to be opened is a tiny, flat, treeless area, a barren 2000 of the 19 million acres (postage-stamp-size on a football field) - but blocked by ideologues. Also banned is oil shale refining - although we have the largest supply in the world, billions of potential gallons of diesel and jet fuel - blocked by Congress. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to reduce our dependency on foreign oil - yet today, we are more dependent than ever. Rasmussen polls say over sixty per cent of Americans are in favor of lifting the ban on offshore drillings and shale - yet a year ago, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ruled out voting on the subject. Where is common sense in America? Why should ideology be so unreasoned and illogical?

See Ideology Without Rational Restraint Corrupts Common Sense - Huge Unrealized Oil Reserves! from Political International And Religious Issues for the full article.]]> http://www.informationresourcenetwork.com/index.php?entry=entry100406-112153 2010-04-06T00:00:00Z 2010-04-06T00:00:00Z
Pre-boomers, those born between 1930 and 1945, have much at stake; but our overwhelming opposition to the health care bill has been ignored. New Seniors, as we are now known, are faced with the prospects of having Medicare cuts of $500 billion dollars. Where will these dollars go? For starters, 30 million people will receive health insurance that were not on the roles before. Most New Seniors want their follow citizens to have health insurance available to them, but not at the expense of our own well-being. We paid taxes for our entire working life, and a portion of those taxes supported the Medicare program. Now, when we have reached the point in our lives when we must depend on more medical care, it may be taken away or the quality greatly diminished.

To think that half of the nearly trillion dollar cost of the health care bill can be funded by savings realized by reducing waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare is pure fiction. To begin with, many experts claim costs could two or three times that amount. Secondly, there is a "doctors' fix" that is not included in the bill to offset the reduction in Medicare payments to medical providers. The cost $250 billion. But even this won't keep many physicians from leaving their practices (surveys show up to a third are ready to quit); and those that stay will have to take care of another 30 million people, so rationing will naturally occur.

See Death and Taxes Under One Roof from Political International And Religious Issues for the full article.]]> http://www.informationresourcenetwork.com/index.php?entry=entry100406-111357 2010-04-06T00:00:00Z 2010-04-06T00:00:00Z
It's difficult to find the original Congressional estimates for Medicare as a percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) before it was passed in the 1960's, it may have never made publication to the internet or it may have actually been removed. But the real cost in 1966 was $3 billion, with a conservative estimate that by 1990 that cost would be $12 billion. As it turned out, in 1990 the actual cost was $107 billion -- or just under 9 times what the estimates said it would be. In 2009, Medicare expenditures alone were $391 billion, with combined Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health expenses totaling about 20% of the GDP. The point of this is, that over a 25 year period Congressional estimates were off by 9 times the original projections.

Around 2003, when then President Bush put through the new Medicare drug addition, it was projected to cost $534 billion over 10 years. Within two years, however, that estimate had changed to $1.2 trillion, or a little more than double the original estimates. One wonders how much will it be off after 25 years have passed.

Now we have all sorts of estimates flying around about the cost of a national health care plan, adding it to an already ludicrously expensive Medicare plan.

See What If National Healthcare Unfolds in the Same Way As Medicare Did? from Political International And Religious Issues for the full article.]]> http://www.informationresourcenetwork.com/index.php?entry=entry100406-111111 2010-04-06T00:00:00Z 2010-04-06T00:00:00Z
There is a little known laboratory experiment being conducted in the United States pitting two economic systems against one another. Those systems are Socialism and Capitalism. This experiment is taking place in two of the largest states in the country, California and Texas, with California representing the big government, high taxes, Socialist economic system and Texas representing the small government, low taxes, Capitalist economic system. The recession has no doubt helped in highlighting the differences between these two systems and the results of this experiment are coming in loud and clear; Capitalism by a long shot.

The differences between the two states is clear. California's high-tax, expensive government verses Texas's low-tax, low-services government. Or, better put; progressive socialism verses conservative, free market capitalism. The conclusion of the laboratory experiment between socialism and capitalism, between California's and Texas' two diverse economic systems is clear.

See The Costly Differences Between Socialism and Capitalism - California Vs Texas from Political International And Religious Issues for the full article.]]> http://www.informationresourcenetwork.com/index.php?entry=entry100406-110408 2010-04-06T00:00:00Z 2010-04-06T00:00:00Z
I have no problem with my current insurance provider or the healthcare I receive. What is going to change for me with this new healthcare bill? Will my premiums be cheaper or more expensive? Will medical services be easier to get or harder?

When I have a complaint or a question about healthcare, will I now be adding a government number to my speed dial? Will the government provide customer service and other points of contact.

There is no tort reform in this bill. This means that the medical lawsuits will continue unhindered. Will these huge payouts to people and their lawyers now come from taxes?

See Can Anyone Answer These Healthcare Questions? from Political International and Religious Issues for the full article.]]> http://www.informationresourcenetwork.com/index.php?entry=entry100406-105737 2010-04-06T00:00:00Z 2010-04-06T00:00:00Z
You didn't know you were an indentured slave?

Let's understand what is an indentured slave. Back in the days of the Pilgrims those who wanted to come to the new land - America - had to have the money for fare and enough to get along when they arrived. Few had it. There were sponsors in America who paid their way in return for 5 years or longer of servitude.

The indentured slaves did the work and kept the sponsors in positions of high income and great power.

Indentured means the workers had to sign a contract agreeing to the terms of the sponsor.

Today slavery in the U.S. and most countries (not all) is not allowed. Today the American slaves don't even realize they have come under the yolk of greedy sociopathic people who seem to be taking care of them just as the original indentured folks were hundreds of years ago.

What do our new indentured slaves do? How did they get that way? Do they even know they are bound to a hidden master?

The hidden master is hiding in plain sight. He (she) lives in the neighborhood. The slaves love their master. Why? Because he continues to feed them and provide freebies of all kinds - free housing, food (stamps), money for TVs, cars, special education, social development, etc., etc. - See Political, International And Religious Issues - Indentured Slaves of America for the full article.]]> http://www.informationresourcenetwork.com/index.php?entry=entry090923-122126 2009-09-23T00:00:00Z 2009-09-23T00:00:00Z
Senator John Kerry is the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the US Senate and yet, that is far too much power for a gentleman who often sides with France and Germany and the folks in Belgium who would like to rule the world over what is best for the American people and in the best interests of the United States of America. Both France and Germany were selling weapons to Saddam Hussein all the way up to the second Iraqi war.

Senator John Kerry knew this because he also received the intelligence briefings in the U.S. Senate from the CIA, and yet, regardless of this he took the side of France and Germany and those who opposed the Iraqi war as he ran against President George Bush for his second term. Now some would say that having a Senator with strong ties to European Governments and the EU itself is good for foreign relations, but if he is on their side, and not on our side then is what he is doing good for America?

Some say the US foreign-policy, and much of our diplomacy efforts is a giant tactic at the State Department of "good guy/bad guy" and whereas, that might appear to be true, in the case of John Kerry much of his actions and activities during the Iraq war undermined the United States military and our efforts in Iraq. - See Political, International And Religious Issues - John Kerry for the full article.]]> http://www.informationresourcenetwork.com/index.php?entry=entry090923-121546 2009-09-23T00:00:00Z 2009-09-23T00:00:00Z
Our inalienable rights, guaranteed by the United States Constitution, have steadily become alienable. The actions of Congress and the States are restricting our freedom.

Years ago, with the advent of the automobile, when codifying this new means of transportation, states decreed that having a driver's license was a right. Today, having a driver's license is a privilege. It would be awkward, if not impossible, for the courts to penalize individuals by taking away their right to drive a vehicle.

In many states, you can be ticketed for not having a seat belt fastened when driving a vehicle or not wearing a helmet operating a motorcycle and riding a bicycle.

There are federal and state laws preventing smoking in certain prescribed areas. There are a multitude of rules and regulations dictating how businesses, professions, and manufacturing can be managed.

Politically correct speech, though not a formal law, is an incursion on our vocabulary. A subtle control on how we express ourselves. - See Politics In America - Political Viewpoints - Our Vanishing Rights for the full article.]]> http://www.informationresourcenetwork.com/index.php?entry=entry090923-121052 2009-09-23T00:00:00Z 2009-09-23T00:00:00Z
These are in addition to the general problems I have with socialized medicine. Here are some tidbits from my reading of the bill:

Sec. 401. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

That's right, if you choose not to take the government option and don't have other insurance you will be taxed at a rate of 2.5% above other Americans who have insurance. So much for your right to choice.

Sec. 412. Responsibilities of non-electing employers.

So, let's say your employer cannot afford insurance for you. It's a small business and insurance is expensive. No problem, they just get nailed with an 8% excise tax. Say goodbye to small businesses.

Sec. 441. Surcharge on high income individuals.

This section is yet another assault on capitalism. if you make more than $350K it will increase your taxes by 1%, 1.5% if more than $500K, and a whopping 5.4% if you make over $1M per year.

So if you are a small business owner who does not provide insurance to employees, does not carry his/her own policy, and makes over $1M per year you are looking at an increase of nearly 15% in taxes related to you and your business.

Section 102. Protecting The Choice to Keep Current Coverage - See Political, International And Religious Issues - Health Care Reform - Change Is Not Always the Best Thing For the Country for the full article.]]> http://www.informationresourcenetwork.com/index.php?entry=entry090923-120622 2009-09-23T00:00:00Z 2009-09-23T00:00:00Z
The rules were simple, but effective, when we pre-boomers were growing up. "Yes," meant "yes." "No," meant "no." "I'll think about it" was a qualified "maybe" that leaned toward "no" but could be "yes," depending on your actions and attitude leading up to dad's final answer. And, pushing for an immediate decision resulted in a certain "no." Have politicians forgotten these basic childhood lessons?

The public, in general, has shown its lack of enthusiasm for continued spending and the consolidation of more parts of our economy to be under government control. This is because we realize, from experience, that this combination will result in higher taxes. The polls, Town Hall meetings and the growing number of signatures on an endless number of petitions clearly indicate the people are saying "no."

Party affiliation is being trumped by the concern citizens have for their own financial situation and personal wellbeing and what the rising national debt means to future generations. Yet the administration insists a health care bill be passed as quickly as possible. Congress used this panic approach on the stimulus package. But, while the House applied the same kind of pressure on the cap and trade bill, it's having troubling clearing the Senate. Do-it-fast legislation is tantamount to asking your father for the car keys next Saturday night, and when he says "I'll think about it" you push for an immediate decision even though the answer is invariably "no." - See Politics In America - Political Viewpoints - Pre-Boomers Grew Up Learning What Lawmakers Need to Know Today for the full article.]]> http://www.informationresourcenetwork.com/index.php?entry=entry090923-120101 2009-09-23T00:00:00Z 2009-09-23T00:00:00Z
Legal malpractice is probably less well-known by most people than is another type of malpractice issue: medical malpractice. However, legal malpractice cases can be just as serious as are their medical counterparts. They have potentially far-reaching impact upon the lives of people who have been involved in a legal battle that ended unfavorably due to incompetency or intentional misrepresentation on behalf of the attorney(s) who represented them.

What constitutes legal malpractice and how do you determine whether you may have cause for a legitimate case?

Here are 7 guidelines for discerning whether you may have grounds for a case. Note, however, that it is essential that you consult with a licensed attorney to help you determine if there are grounds for a legitimate case in your particular situation:

Guideline 1: A legal malpractice cases is really a case within a case: Such cases must by definition come about after the close of another case whereby the would-be plaintiff has experienced an unfavorable decision - either a loss or an inadequate settlement. In this sense, a legal malpractice case is really a case within a case. If all of the qualifying conditions for are met, such a case may be brought against the attorney representing the client in the underlying (i.e., original) case. If the first attorney is found to have been negligent or misleading, he or she may be liable for damages to the original plaintiff.

Guideline 2: The concept rests upon the assumption that attorneys are obligated to act competently: Legal malpractice cases are built upon the premise that attorneys, when representing clients in legal cases, are expected to conduct themselves in a professional and competent manner. Like other professionals, attorneys are implicitly trusted by their clients to do everything reasonable within their power to act on behalf of their clients. The failure to do so, especially if a particular legal case ends in an unfavorable decision for the client, may represent grounds for a legitimate case. - See Legal Blog - Legal Information for the full article.]]> http://www.informationresourcenetwork.com/index.php?entry=entry090911-112245 2009-09-11T00:00:00Z 2009-09-11T00:00:00Z