WASHINGTON — Two weeks after President Barack Obama signed the big health care overhaul into law, Americans are struggling to understand how — and when — the sweeping measure will affect them.

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors’ offices, human resources departments and business groups.

“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/06/91696/health-care-overhaul-spawns-mass.html#ixzz0kc8SKeLT

Sorry folks, you were suckered.  You were tricked into thinking you were getting “free Government Healthcare” which, by the way, wouldn’t really be a terrible idea.  Don’t get me wrong, I support the idea of better Healthcare for everyone.

But the recent ObamaCare bill isn’t going to be what the people want, or even what they think it is.  Instead of Government based coverage for everyone you’re basically getting a system that will end up subsidizing the Insurance industry by forcing everyone to get insurance whether they need it or not.  You’re still going to be paying too much for services and surgery, it’s just now you also get to pay for Insurance you may not want, need, or be able to afford.

So hey, it’s ok isn’t it?  They told you it was going to be great!  There were a few guys out there telling you “write your congress person” and “don’t let it pass” but they are just crazy guys ranting about whatever for ratings right?  They don’t know what they are talking about right?  They are all just “evil republicans” jealous of the democrat’s in power or crazy Tea Partiers.  We should all just trust in Obama because he talks nice and has a good smile.  Also we can’t hate him because people will claim we’re just racist against the first minority president.

Besides, he told us we’d get free Healthcare!  Well didn’t he?  We know he said it somewhere, or was that just media hype and confusion.  Does anyone even really know what’s in this Healthcare bill? Do we need to know?  Our congress people all know, they know what’s good for us don’t they?  We voted them in didn’t we? Well, not all of us voted,. that would require we take time out to care and think and leave the house on voting day.

Sort of like how writing letters is a good idea but we should leave it to someone else.  These congress people are much too busy to read *my* letter, and surely someone else who is more able then I will make a stand right? Besides Tiger Woods is screwing some prostitute and Sandra Bullock wants to kill her Nazi Ex Boyfriend.  That’s WAY more important than some bill in congress.

Besides, those guys in Washington know what they are doing, they care about us, we voted for them after all…. they care… right?

So, I’m listening to the radio over the weekend.  I hear an Ad Council PSA for Water conservation.  We’ve got to save our water, it’ll run out, prices will go up due to shortages, all that sort of thing.

Then, a few minutes later there is a CNN news donut with the following report.

Water Bills Go Up As Usage Drops

Many water utilities are raising rates because water use is down, in part because manufacturers have closed or are cutting back, tourism has fallen and the real estate market is in the doldrums.

Ok, wait a minute, so people are using less water, now the rates are going up.  Meanwhile, there is someone pushing the idea that using more water will cause the rates to go up!

So which is it?  I should probably point out that the planet has more Water on it than anything else.  Yeah, a lot of it needs treatment since it’s ocean water, but in general, it never really goes anywhere.  Things (plants, animals) consume it, then they expel it.  Much of the treatment happens naturally though weather cycles and such.

Another angle here, PSAs are often not paid for by the industry in question but instead by Non Profits with agendas of their own.  Some do-gooders get the bright idea that we all need to reduce our water usage because they dislike the idea of using recycled piss water even though Nature takes care of this on it’s own anyway, so they run some PSAs and push a campaign to get everyone to conserve.  Next thing you know, the industry itself isn’t making any money anymore.

Water seems to be one area where Supply and Demand just doesn’t work.  There’s an essentially infinite supply and an equally infinite demand.

One of my main issues with the whole Heathcare Reform Bill is with the Mandate of Coverage.  That is, everyone is required to have Healthcare coverage.  While I have in the past suggested that I would end up being forced to pay for insurance even though i personally don’t believe I need it, this argument is likely false since currently I already qualify for government covered healthcare due to my family income.  I am not sure yet if those requirements are going to change under this new plan.  The point is, my issue with this part of the reform really isn’t something that likely even affects me in the first place.

I will add though that despite this coverage, I never go tot he doctor and i don’t have any prescription medication.  Basically, I don’t use it.  If i get sick, i spend a day or two sleeping until I feel better.  I very rarely get sick and it doesn’t ever last long.  it is my belief that my policy against over medicating has helped my immune system become naturally stronger.  Just as working out your muscles make them stronger, letting your immune system get a work out makes it better able to fight infection. The best I ever take is NyQuill, and mostly because it’ll put me to sleep and clear up my sinuses.  I also feel that the doctors of this worl have better things to do than have me whine about how my nose is congested or my throat hurts,

I still don’t believe everyone should be required to carry Health insurance.  There have been some arguments in the past about how “People without insurance drive up the cost for others”.  I really fail to see how this argument works.  I heard this argument accompanied with the idea that when an uninsured person goes to the emergency room, then others have to foot the bill.  No, the person foots the bill.  Sort of like getting car repairs.  The doctor will tally up the charges then sends the uninsured person a bill.  They can arrange payments or just pay it off.  Simple.

Then there is the push to force the younger, healthier, generation of people less likely to have insurance into being forced to carry.  The idea is basically, to subsidize the elderly.  The young people pay in but they are much less likely to cash out.  So the insurance companies can use this extra income to better distribute the overall cost across all of the people lowering the insurance costs for older people who likely live on a smaller fixed income.  As noble as this seems, there are many much better ways to decrease the cost of medical care.  This subsidy isn’t even likely to work in the long run. Sure, we’ll initially get a token drop initially but what’s more likely to happen is that rates overall for everyone will simply go up.  Also the margin of difference will be as close as possible to the supposed limit of 4x the cost for the elderly vs. the young, i can pretty much guarantee that.  And that’s not saying the young will end up with cheaper rates, that’s saying the elderly will still be over-charged.

So what’s a better method to reduce costs?  How about better regulation of pharmaceutical companies and pointless lawsuits over everything.  Pharmaceutical companies often push doctors to prescribe their drugs through various forms of gifts and kickbacks.  This means many unnecessary sales of drugs that must be paid for by the insurance companies.  It also goes against the idea that sometimes you just need to let your body heal itself naturally.  Antibiotics are so overused that they are losing their potency as infectious diseases become resistant.  I’m not saying every drug is unnecessary, I’m saying that sometimes all we really need for our cold is a bowl of chicken soup and a good nap.  Also, as unpleasant as it is, vomiting when sick is actually good for you.  It’s part of your body’s way of expelling things that it doesn’t like.

Then there are drugs for the mind.  Drugs that help keep us “mentally right”.  Of all of the medical industries in the world, this one is the biggest scam ever.  Have you ever really listened to the commercials for depression drugs?  The “symptoms” of depression are 90% things that occur to everyone 90% of the time.  They often contradict each other in the same list in order to help cover everyone.  The whole point is to convince people that “hey, i might be depressed, I should get some Symbalta/whatever.”  Guess what, everyone feels down sometimes.  That doesn’t mean you need to keep yourself doped up one drugs constantly to fix some “problem”.  Chances are you just need an outlet for your irritations and anger to keep yourself balanced.  I recommend blogging personally.

I mentioned above the other issue with healthcare cost being needless lawsuits.  A recent (4-5 weeks ago) episode of NoAgenda had commentary from a doctor about how a girl had been brought in for an injury and the doctor did not feel that a CAT scan or x-ray were necessary to diagnose any issues after examining her.  The father said that if the doctor did not perform these tests that he would sue the doctor if any problems came in.  The doctor’s response was essentially “Why would I recommend against this, there’s no loss to me, I get paid more for the added procedure, and I eliminate the the threat of a potential lawsuit”.  Though he also pointed out that the radiation, though minor, could cause long term damage to the girl.  On the other hand, it would be far enough in the future he’d never end up being liable for the damages.

This is the sort of pressure faced by our healthcare system’s employees.  When a doctor can be held liable for birth defects of a baby, defects that likely couldn’t even be predicted and even more likely were caused by either genetics or something the mother had done (like unnecessary CAT scans), then we are working with a broken system.  When a doctor can be held liable for looking out for the long term interest of a patient vs the short term panic, then the system is broken.  I believe this is also part of why medication is over prescribed.  Better to give some treatment than none at all, you might get sued.  Even if the doctor wins the suit there is still an exorbitant cost involved with time and money to work through a legal system that’s designed to work in favor of those with money to burn.

One last note, back to the issue of required carry.  You could equate this to auto insurance, after all, you’re required to carry auto insurance if you drive right?  The thing is, you have the option to not drive if you so choose.  You don’t have the option to not live.  Ok, technically you DO have that option but what kind of a choice is that really?

I am not opposed to healthcare reform, or the idea of a government run healthcare system, I simply feel that this new law is going about things in a manner that, in the end, is going to do more harm than good.

Just another reason to be careful what you share on your social networking websites.  The government has released a document detailing how they use some of these sites to track people.

http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2010/03/17/17readwriteweb-how-us-government-spies-use-facebook-53046.html

The DoJ presentation describes Facebook as much more co-operative with law enforcement requests for user information than Twitter and MySpace are. It also explains to officers what the advantages of going undercover on social networking sites are. The EFF posted IRS training documents for using various internet tools as well, including Google Street View, but those were much tamer than the Justice file.

Of course is there really that much to be alarmed about?  Firstly, chances are, anything that could be discovered via Facebook, the government already knows.  at least as far as personal information goes.

Secondly, if you happen to actually be a criminal and on Facebook, I would really hope you’re not stupid enough to post secret details of your plans on your Facebook page, even if you’ve set things to be “private” or “friends only”.  Additionally, hypothetically, you’re using Facebook to get together with your gang buddies and you’re planning some sort of spree or even just maybe a Sweet 16 party for your daughter or something, I really hope you’re not ALSO stupid enough to friend RANDOM PEOPLE.

I can see the conversation now…

Gang Boss: “The cops have discovered our secret plot!  Who let them into the secret Facebook page!”

Gansta: “Sorry, my bad, SexyBitch14 said she would give us nuddie pics if i let her join.”

Anyway, this brings up a better point.  Which is, what is the point?  Do we really think that these people are going to be posting their secret criminal plans online in this manner?  Of course, some of the people who pull this sort of crazy crap are pretty idiotic to begin with so who knows,  It just might work.

Something else of note…

As social networks go, LinkedIn’s “use for criminal communications appears limited” the document says. You don’t say. LinkedIn can be useful in finding expert witnesses, however.

LinkedIn seems to be more of an online resume than a social network.  So what, you skim looking for profiles with things like ‘

Skills: Sniper Rifle, 500 yards, throat slitting, drug running…

Previous Employers: 1998-2005: The Mafia, 2005-2007: McDonald’s, 2007-Current: Yakuza

Give me a break….

Via Geeksugar…

By Anthony Fox - No Agenda News

In 2006, former US Treasury agent Leo Wanta, gave a series of interviews to Greg Szymanski. He claimed he was attempting to return trillions of dollars that lay in offshore accounts to the US Treasury.

GREG: Investigative Journal is travelling to Switzerland today and my guest [is] Leo Wanta. Tell us how this all started for you.

Be sure to tell your family and friends, Congress is doing it’s best to piss all over the constitutional law making progress and the voice of the people in general.

Basically, the house is trying to put up some blatant smoke and mirrors to vote on the Senate Healthcare Bill without actually voting on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742.html

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers “deem” the health-care bill to be passed.

Basically they vote of if it passed or not.  Not to pass it, but if it passed.  The main reason for this is that the bill itself will never pass.  It’s extremely unpopular all around.  No one wants to have their name down for a yes vote because they all have the sense to know that the thing is a train wreck in the making.  Meanwhile there is excessive pressure from those in charge to pass SOMETHING.

I’m still not sure why there is such a rush to ramrod this thing through.  The only thing I can figure is that the longer they wait, the more people will realize that the whole plan is going to cost everyone a ton of money in taxes and whatnot without actually solving the inherent problems with the healthcare system as a whole (insurance companies and pharmacy companies scamming people with price gouging on over priced drugs).

There is also the part where Obama has promised this package constantly and even with a guaranteed win all around with Democrat control everywhere in the government, they still managed to screw up passing this Bill.  Essentially Obama NEEDS this to pass in order to help save face.  Especially after that previous blatant lie that everyone was talking about a few months ago.

So, since they know they can’t pass this bill with normal procedures, they will circumvent the rules and requirements, making up procedure as they go to fake pass a bill that, while good in idea, is so full of BS and hidden agenda that it’ll be terrible for all those involved.

Lindsay Lohan wants $100M over E-Trade ad

Lindsay Lohan is suing the financial company E-Trade, insisting that a boyfriend-stealing, “milkaholic” baby in its latest commercial — who happens to be named Lindsay — was modeled after her. And she wants $100 million for her pain and suffering, The Post has learned.

It’s pretty sad when you think you’re such hot shit that obviously any reference to your name, even if it isn’t related to your name, is about you.  I mean it’s not like anyone in the history of EVER has been named Lindsay before Lohan came along.

I mean sure, the people making the commercial in question could have named the baby Paris or Angelina but those names just wouldn’t have made sense in the context of “Milkaholic”.

And what is a “Milkaholic” anyway?  Are we supposed to believe that babies consume mostly milk or something?  Clearly “Milk” in this case” is a euphemism for “crack”.  How else can you explain how creepy these babies are OR how they are capable of so effectively managing their stock portfolios?

Nevermind the fact that pretty much no one gives a shit about Lindsay Lohan anymore.  Who cares that both her music and movie careers are pretty much in the crapper.  Who cares that she’s become such a creepy anorexic looking skeleton that she’s not even particularly hot anymore.  It’s clear that most people still think of Lohan constantly and would clearly make the whole “Crackaholic Creepy Baby” connection when they hear the name “Lindsay”.

via IHatetheMedia.com

Toddler Dies After Mistaking Gun for Wii Controller

Cheyenne’s mother told police officers that the child was used to playing a shooting game with the Nintendo Wii video game console and likely confused the real gun with the realistic-looking black toy gun, the sheriff said.

There’s just so many things that seem wrong in this story.  Wrong as in “why” not so much wrong as in inaccurate.

Primarily, why the hell is your toddler playing Wii games involving shooting things in the first place?  I guess the parents had enough sense not to take the kid out to practice shooting the real thing so they figure the simulated Wii would be good enough.  The fact that these people keep a loaded handgun on the dining room table and go to the trouble of getting the more realistic Wii gun accessory (as opposed to the goofy white one Nintendo puts out).

Secondly, who leaves a gun laying around with a kid hanging around at all in the first place?  Haven’t we had enough gun control style education to let people know that it’s a bad idea to leave a loaded weapon sitting out in the open around your house?  Especially if you’ve got a toddler running around?  Hell kids will try to eat anything they find laying around, and apparently a bullet isn’t an exception to this rule.

The article says no criminal charges are being filed though you can bet this one will work for several hidden agendas.  It’s an obvious argument point for both gun control and video game violence.  It’s too bad it was involving the Wii which has many less violent video games than either of it’s two competitors.  I’m sure it’ll be supported by inaccurate arguments of Doom and Grand Theft Auto being involved.

This probably isn’t news….

The internet, is changing the world.

Obviously it’s changing the way we work, the way we organize, the way we do business, the way we do everything.  Email, Twitter, Facebook, Skype, these are all great at changing the way we DO things.

Perhaps a better phrasing for the point I’m trying to make would be, “The internet is changing the way we think.”

Even that phrasing has some fundamental flaws.  It certainly seems to be changing the way people perceive the world and the news and what they see and what they are told.

Let’s say, we’re twenty years ago.  You hear a news report involving some matter and somewhere you think to yourself, “something seems off about that.”  Maybe it seems contradictory or opposite of something reported in the past.  The problem is, you can’t quite remember.  You could go to the library and pour over some microfilm but you don’t really have time for this and it’s probably not important.  Besides the fact of what would it prove?  Maybe you could tell your friends, maybe they’d believe you, maybe they wouldn’t care.

People have always noticed these inconsistencies.  Some people had time to care about them.  These were the “conspiracy theory whack jobs”.  These people might occasionally cross paths and exchange ideas or make little newsletters you could subscribe to and get mailed once a month.

Enter, the internet.  Let’s not jump to the current days but let’s say, the 1996 Internet.

You could dial in to a BBS or do some electronic searches on a library computer to find out if your suspicions on the inconsistency with the news seemed true.  It is quicker so you’re more likely to do it.  It’s still a bit cumbersome to prove the theory to people since you’ll need to send out some sort of mass email or wave around piles of print outs and papers.  It’s easier to find others who think the way you do but it’s still limited to the more technologically inclined who own a computer and know where to point their modems.

Jump ahead another ten years (or so) to present day.

Suddenly, we’re all connected.  Suddenly, you can do all of the research you need from the comfort of your own recliner.  Anyone can be a publisher through a blog with a few simple steps.  you can easily find groups and message boards of like minded individuals to help support your viewpoint.  Citing a source to others is as simple as copying a hyperlink.  All of this data is easily saved and archived for future reference.  It’s all easy to accomplish and it’s all lightning fast.

Now, instead of a “nutball” with 10 subscribers to some print paper you typed up on a typewriter you’ve got 1000 followers on twitter and a healthy following to your blog which you update 4-5 times a day.  Others subscribe to your ideas, maybe not all of them, others notice the problems and inconsistencies presented by the news and media outlets.  Maybe they run their own columns on their own websites.

If the printing press helped the people’s voice be heard, the internet is a massive amplifier.  People become increasingly disenfranchised by their superiors as the information becomes more and more accessible.  Occasionally measures are made to stop it or keep it down but it’s the voice of the world and it’s booming and powerful and it can’t be contained.

….and we are barely into it.  Information flow has been exponentiated by the world wide web yet it’s still a very tiny ball compared to it’s potential and it’s future.