Archive for August 2009
Now that a Democrat is running up 9 trillion dollar deficits over 10 years, Krugman loves ’em. When a Republican was spending like a kid with Dad’s credit card, Krugman thought they were horrible.
Here is his NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=3
His “Deficit Bad” article: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1064193.htm
Yes, you have to pay State sales tax on your $4500 “cash for clunkers” LOL suckers!
Complete Article at: http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=0,89084
Posted August 27, 2009on:
Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and “other information as is prescribed by” regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for “affordability credits.”
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details — there’s no specified limit on what’s available or unavailable — to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify “affordability credits.”
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a “low-income prescription drug subsidy” but has not applied for it.
Update August 27 11 a.m: Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center says in e-mail: “We would oppose section 431(a) of the bill because it violates the intent of the Privacy Act which generally requires agencies to obtain information directly from individuals and not from other agencies.” EPIC still hasn’t updated their Web site to reflect this sentiment, but it’s good to know that other folks have concerns too.
One of the problems with any proposed law that’s over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats’ proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as “Obamacare.”
Fluoride will be added to tap water in Southampton after health bosses voted through the plans despite protests.
It is the first time a health trust in England, rather than water companies, has been allowed to introduce fluoridation under new laws.
The idea has proved controversial with 72% of 10,000 respondents in a public consultation opposing the plan.
Despite the opposition, the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) unanimously backed the move.
Southampton City Council was in favour, but Hampshire County Council was against the plan, which is designed to cut tooth decay and which will affect 200,000 people.
Jim Easton, the SCSHA chief executive, said: “We recognise that water fluoridation is a contentious issue for some people.
“The board was satisfied that, based on existing research, water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to improve dental health.”
“ I think it is absolutely disgraceful, they have refused to listen to all the evidence we have given them ”
John Spottiswoode, Hampshire Against Fluoridation
The SCSHA will now write to Southern Water instructing the firm to increase levels of fluoride from a natural 0.08 part per million to one part per million.
The Southampton City Primary Care Trust (PCT) said more than 40% of children in the area were suffering from tooth decay and the increase was desperately needed.
Bob Deans, chief executive for the PCT, said: “We are very pleased that following an extensive public consultation, SCSHA has decided to introduce a water fluoridation scheme.”
The SCSHA said the problem of tooth decay among children and adults in Southampton was worse than the national average across England, despite a number of public health measures that have already been adopted in the city.
But opponents claim fluoride has negative effects on the body and vowed to contest the decision in the courts.
John Spottiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said: “I think it is absolutely disgraceful, they have refused to listen to all the evidence we have given them.
“They have ignored the will of the people – 72% didn’t want it and yet they still are going to do it. It is deeply unethical.
“We think it’s illegal and are thinking what we do next, maybe taking it to the courts in Europe.”
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2009/02/26 21:25:48 GMT
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
Updated April 12, 2004
by Paul Connett, PhD
Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University
Canton, NY 13617
A must read! http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm