// Popular Posts

// Latest

See All
Grandpa This is an Incredible story! ;-) Nov 20, 2009 2:51 AM This is an Incredible story! In 1986, Peter Davies was on holiday in   Kenya after graduating from   Northwestern   University ..... On a hike through the bush, he came across a young bull elephant standing with one leg raised in the air. The elephant seemed distressed, so Peter approached it very carefully.. He got down on one knee, inspected the elephants foot, and found a large piece of wood deeply embedded in it. As carefully and as gently as he could, Peter worked the wood out with his knife, after which the elephant gingerly put down its foot. The elephant turned to face the man, and with a rather curious look on its face, stared at him for several tense moments. Peter stood frozen, thinking of nothing else but being trampled. Eventually the elephant trumpeted loudly, turned, and walked away. Peter never forgot that elephant or the events of that day. Twenty years later, Peter was walking through the Chicago Zoo with his teenaged son. As they approached the elephant enclosure, one of the creatures turned and walked over to near where Peter and his son Cameron were standing. The large bull elephant stared at Peter, lifted its front foot off the ground, then put it down.. The elephant did that several times then trumpeted loudly, all the while staring at the man. Remembering the encounter in 1986, Peter could not help wondering if this was the same elephant.. Peter summoned up his courage, climbed over the railing, and made his way into the enclosure. He walked right up to the elephant and stared back in wonder. The elephant trumpeted again, wrapped its trunk around one of Peter legs and slammed him against the railing, killing him instantly. Probably wasn't the same elephant.
Grandpa Mary Landrieu sold her vote on health care for $100 million it appears. Nov 20, 2009 2:45 AM ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform? Here’s a case study. On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.” The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.” I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill. In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.) Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu. How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million. Here’s the incredibly complicated language: SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER. Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and 2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: ‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following: ‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5. ‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection. ‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points. ‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html
Grandpa OMG, MORE Acorn tapes. Nov 19, 2009 6:21 PM
Grandpa Eric Holder testifies, will it make it to the MSM? Nov 19, 2009 1:25 PM
Grandpa Reid Bill True cost Nov 19, 2009 12:21 PM Reid's fuzzy math Comments: 2 'Reform' bill's true cost is twice advertised price By JEFFREY H. ANDERSO Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is touting the Senate’s newest health-care bill as costing $849 billion over 10 years. But this uses the same accounting trick as past versions: 99 percent of the costs don’t kick in until the fifth year of that “10 year” period. And the true 10-year costs are well over twice what Reid's advertising: $1.8 billion. The Democrats cite the bills’ projected costs from 2010-19. Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, the bill would cost just $9 billion total from 2010 through 2013 — versus $147 billion in 2016 alone. In the first 40 percent of what the Democrats are calling the bill’s “first 10 years,” only 1 percent of its costs would yet have hit. As the CBO analysis indicates, the bill’s real 10-year costs would start in 2014. And in its true first decade (2014 to 2023), CBO projects the bill’s costs to be $1.8 trillion — double the price Reid is advertising. And that’s even though the CBO optimistically assumes the government-run “public option” wouldn’t cost a cent. Over this same 10-year span, the 2,074-page bill would hike taxes and fines on Americans by $892 billion — more than the alleged price of the bill. Just as problematic are the bill’s effects on entitlement spending and deficits. Medicare is already teetering on the edge of insolvency. This year’s Medicare Trustees Report (signed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, among others) warns that the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund — the main funding channel for the largest part of Medicare — will become insolvent in 2017. Worse, nearly four people are now paying into Medicare for every beneficiary — but, with the baby boomers’ retirement fast approaching, that number will drop over the next 20 years to about 2½. Fewer and fewer people will be paying higher and higher costs. Yet, as CBO notes, in its real first decade, the Senate bill would siphon $802 billion out of Medicare to spend elsewhere. With its financial outlook already beyond bleak, Medicare is the last place to look to for “free” money. Among the $802 billion that Reid would divert from Medicare is $431 billion in cuts in doctors’ pay (far more than the misleading figure for 2010-19). The bill says it would cut payments to doctors for services to Medicare patients by 23 percent in 2011 — and never raise them back up, ever. No one who’s been in Washington for more than five minutes actually expects this reduction to occur — and if it doesn’t, then the Senate health bill would increase our deficits by $286 billion in its true first decade, according to CBO projections. In his historic speech to Congress on Sept. 9, President Obama pledged not to support any health bill “if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.” This bill would raise the deficit by 2.86 trillion dimes — and yet the president is its most visible and audible supporter. According to The Washington Post, the president has also stated “flatly that he won’t accept a bill that doesn’t ‘bend the curve’ on rising health-care costs.” Yet nothing in the CBO analysis suggests that the Senate bill would bend the cost-curve downward. Meanwhile, the Office of the Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has just concluded that the House health bill — which the President also champions — would bend the curve upward, raising nationwide health-care costs by over half a trillion dollars by 2020 (and by $289 billion even in the unlikely event that doctors’ pay is actually slashed). If Congress is to consider legislation to remake a sixth of the US economy and insert the government into the health-care decisions of every American, it should at least be honest about the costs. In its first 10 years of actually being in effect in any meaningful way, Sen. Reid’s bill would cost $1.8 trillion. And it’s a simple fact that every penny of that would have to be paid by the American people through some combination of three things: cuts to existing programs, higher deficits, and higher taxes. Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/reid_fuzzy_math_bykKhLTE2JnwN40xtayzWM#ixzz0XL3fhCAe

// Posts

See All
This is an Incredible story! ;-) Mary Landrieu sold her vote on health care for $100 million it appears. OMG, MORE Acorn tapes. Eric Holder testifies, will it make it to the MSM?

// Polls

See All
The Face of Terrorism Can you eat with chopsticks? Do you know your states? Do you know your states (1)

// Videos

See All
ACORN gets $ Back!!! Don't try this at home - (Test of video upload) How do you play piano? :) Lights Please

// Galleries

See All
Inspired by Sy... I present wedding shenanigans 11 Photos

// Top People

See All
Grandpa ccpdm Cassandra57 samantha999 skb9850 brookrene melizzle Trixie6 Shopaholichunny UnDave35 laura220 Great Sommelier Mykie7 Eleuthera

// Group Info

50 Members
Owner skb9850
Started Oct 27, 2008
Type Moderated

Welcome to the salt shaker! This is a place where conservative minded folks can kick back and discuss other things besides the political issues.