A little dose of Truth

Thought I'd check out politifact and share the results on some of the more common complaints and rumors I've heard recently.

The health care reform bill "is the largest tax increase in U.S. history."
Joe Scarborough

Result: False. Bush I, Clinton and Reagan all pushed taxes higher than the bump from Obama's health care bill.

People "can't go fishing anymore because of Obama."
Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, et al.

Result: False. Details at the link

"President Obama's bill won't bring down the costs (of health care) for average Americans -- or really for very few Americans, if any."
Michelle Bachman

Result: False. But just about everything out of this woman's mouth is batwing, bullshit, poo-flinging crazy. Here's a link to another example of her just flinging out random, unsupported assertions. Note near the end of the story where she quotes numbers from a study by the New England Journal of Medicine- and then the NEJM responds that they don't know what the hell she's talking about.

"Obama has proposed a 1.4% pay increase for active duty military in 2011. This is THE LOWEST SINCE 1973 ... A LOWER PAY INCREASE THAN WELFARE RECIPIENTS!!!"
Fun little facebook chain letter

Result: Mostly bullshit. By law the president must propose military pay increases in line with an economic report called the ECI. This year, the ECI was 1.4%- exactly what the President proposed. He does have some leeway in increasing pay beyond this percentage, but the Department of Defense has asked him to not exceed the percentage since it must be paid out of their funds.

Franklin Roosevelt never allocated more than 12 percent of GDP to federal spending, while the percentage for Barack Obama is not projected to drop below 22.8 percent.
Glenn Beck

Result: Mostly bullshit. Here's the quick version. Beck does not take into account all of FDR's presidency. According to politifact,

"Between 1941 and 1942, Roosevelt doubled what the federal government spent, reaching 24.3 percent of GDP for 1942. And it didn't stop there. For both 1943 and 1944, federal spending represented 43.6 percent of GDP. And for 1945 (a year when both Roosevelt and Harry Truman served as president) it was 41.9 percent.

So, to say that Rooselvelt never allocated more than 12% of GDP is just wrong. Furthermore, it doesn't help Glenn Beck's case that Obama's huge federal spending as part of GDP is evidence for a socialist takeover since under Reagan, Federal outlays were between 21 and 23 percent- about the same as Obama's.

"We passed without, frankly, the help of the Republican caucus, we passed 25 tax cuts last year, mostly aimed at the middle class and small businesses."
David Axelrod

Result: True. The stimulus bill did have 25 various "tax cuts" aimed mostly at middle class and small businesses. It passed with 0 republican support. (Although plenty of Republicans like to take credit at ribbon cutting ceremonies, etc...")

"We've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs."
Barack Obama

Result: False. While this administration has been far more transparent and wary of installing lobbyists in key policy positions, they have not completely adhered to this promise. Though a rule was passed barring lobbyists from policy postions, waivers have been used on at least four occasions.

"We were promised (the stimulus) would provide 'green jobs' for Americans, but 80% of the $2 billion they spent on alternative energy went to purchase wind turbines built in China!"
Sarah Palin

Result: False. The bitch can't read and doesn't understand all that mathy talk.

"We have solved the problem. ... Scientists are now saying leave the nuclear waste where it is."
Harry Reid

Result: False. Seriously Democrats? Couldn't you do better for a leader than Harry Reid?

of all health care spending.""Health insurance companies' costs are only 4 percent
Heatlth Insurance Lobbyists Commercial

Result: True. Of course, that 4% is 92 billion dollars in profit and overhead. That comes out to over $300 a year per American that is spent every year just to prop up the administrative costs and profits of your insurance companies.

Democratic presidents "have been considerably more effective at creating private-sector jobs."
Carolyn Maloney

Result: True. Almost 3x more effective.

The Healthcare Bill

This is a great little faq/ summary of the healthcare bill that can be used for reference from the Examiner.

Would I Be Forced to Purchase Insurance?

Probably not. If you already have employer-provided insurance you can keep it. If you do not currently have any insurance you may have to purchase a play by 2014. Beginning in 2014 most Americans would have to purchase health care insurance or be forced to pay a fine. If someone already has insurance (including through their employer) they would not need to worry about this provision. For those who would be affected they could purchase insurance from anywhere but if they do not they would need to pay either $750 or 2% of their income, whichever is greater. Exemptions would be granted for those in financial hardship which is measured using the poverty line.

Would My Current Insurance Be Affected?

Yes and no. Yes in that any new plans would be regulated by the federal government. The regulation would make plans provide a minimum of amount of benefits but not a maximum. It would also implement consumer protections and an appeals process for consumers who want to dispute the decisions of their insurance companies on individual coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that premiums would go down under reform compared to the rate premiums would go up without reform.

Having said all that the reform plan "grandfathers" plans already in existence. Therefore a plan currently in existence would be exempt to any changes at least for a while under the current bill.

What About This Exchange Idea and the Public Option?

There is no public option or new government provided insurance plan under the current bill. Instead each state would have a health care insurance exchange where any individual can purchase health insurance. The insurance plans in the exchange would have to meet federal regulation that would ensure they provide minimum benefits, etc. Individuals who are currently covered by an employer-provided plan could not purchase form the exchange. Undocumented immigrants could also not purchase from the plan.

All plans in the exchange would be regulated by the federal government. These regulations would include requirements that the plans provide a certain minimum level of coverage, that they do not discriminate based on pre-existing exclusions, that they spend a high percentage of their premiums on actual care (around 80%), and that they follow certain consumer protection laws. In addition plans could no longer limit how much costs they are willing to cover. In the past insurance companies would be able to limit their liability to $250,000 for example and stop paying once that limit was reached.

What Would Happen to Medicare?

The proposal would set up a board that would research and propose solution to reduce the costs of Medicare. The board would be specifically prohibited from proposing anything which would amount to rationing care for the elderly. Instead the proposal would focus on reducing waste and fraud while making Medicare more efficient.

What if I Can Not Afford Health Insurance?

Individuals who make between 100%-400% above the federal poverty level would be eligible to receive credits to assist them in purchasing health care insurance. The amount of credit would generally go down the more income an individual made. For the poorest the credit may pay for all of their health care premiums.

Would Employers Be Forced to Provide Insurance?

Maybe. If a business has over 50 full-time employees they will be forced to offer health care coverage or face a $750 fee per employee. Businesses with less than 50 employees would be exempted from providing coverage.

What About Medicaid?

Medicaid would be expanded to cover all individuals under the age of 65 who make less than 133% of the federal poverty level. Currently the poverty level is around $18,000 for a family of three.

Does the Bill Pay for Abortions?

The bill keeps the current federal law on abortion funding in that federal funds could not be used directly to pay for abortion or abortion-related services. The current bill does not include the abortion language in the House bill which put restriction on funding which were even more strict than the current law. Essentially the House bill would have prevented individual receiving federal assistance from purchasing any health care plan (private or not) that provided abortion coverage.

What About Small Businesses?

Initially small businesses would receive a tax credit for up to 35% of the money they pay to purchase health insurance for their employees. By 2014 that percentage would increase to 50%. The idea is to help small businesses pay for health insurance coverage since they currently do not have the bargaining power of larger businesses.

Small businesses would be allowed to join forces in order to purchase insurance for their employees. In other words five small businesses could all negotiate with an insurance company together in order to get a lower rate as big businesses currently do.

How is It All Paid For?

First there is a cadillac plan tax. If an insurance plan costs $8,500 for an individual or $23,000 for family it would be taxed at 40% for any amount above those amounts. Most health care plans cost much less than those amounts in premiums.

Secondly there are taxes on health insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and medical supply companies. Each of these companies would be assessed fees. Pharmaceuticals would pay $2 billion, medical supply companies would pay $2.3 billion, and health insurance companies would pay $2 billion starting in 2011 and increasing to $10 billion by 2017.

Finally the bill would count on increased efficiency and reduced waste in Medicare to offset some of the other costs. Overall the bill was projected to save a little over $100 billion in the first ten years of its existence and well over $700 billion after that. Those projections were done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office

Videos by The Thinking Atheist

Look for The Thinking Atheist youtube channel. There are some poignant videos there with great production.

Santa Apologetics

There are some people who will tell you that Santa Claus is just a myth. This may be for a number of reasons. Some may have had some crisis that shook their faith. Others may simply want to be able to act any way they choose without believing they will end up on a naughty list.

Don't you remember the joy that Santa brought to your life? Santa provided you with such blessings on Christmas morning, it is a shame that so many would refuse his love and treat him with such disrespect, claiming he is not real. The evidence was right before your eyes!

I know that some will say, "my parents gave me those presents, not Santa". But that is because they still have child-like views and lack understanding. If Santa were to actually deliver the gifts in person, he would make it very easy to believe in him. But one of the qualities Santa looks for in people is their faith in him. So he chooses to work in more subtle ways. Understand that when your parents get you gifts, it is because Santa is working through them and stirring their hearts.

Some people might claim that there is no evidence of Santa at the North Pole. There are two common responses to this depending upon one's beliefs. Some say that Santa is really at the North Pole and all these so-called explorers and satellites just have not seen him because they haven't explored every single square yard of the North Pole. Others respond that Santa living at the North Pole is not meant to be taken literally but should be understood as a metaphor that Santa lives above us.

Santa also sends his elves out into the world to help us. It is well-known that elves can choose to be seen or remain unseen. But the evidence of their assistance is all around us. Whenever something good happens and you can't explain it, understand that it is Santa's elves helping you at his request. They may take the wheel and guide you to safety during an accident, or show you how to solve a problem you couldn't figure out on your own. The evidence is there if you just look for it.

What about naughty people who receive presents anyway? Well, who are you to judge who is naughty? Santa watches these people all the time and knows what is in their hearts. He has his reasons for giving them presents and you should trust in his justice since he can know more about them than you ever could. It is our place to simply strive to be on the nice list and enjoy our blessings.

Do not let Santa-deniers shake your faith. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus and he is a glourious blessing to all those who know him and welcome him into their hearts.

--------------

I wonder how quickly apologetics and unshakeable faith would develop if parents quit telling children that Santa isn't real. It's so easy to rationalize what you want to be true. The only difference between belief in Santa and belief in god is that your parents actually told you Santa wasn't real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnzoxSEiW88

Funny

Link

Getting Screwed on Sex

Many people have pointed out that if we are designed, the designer did not do an especially good job. There are some design flaws that would get a modern engineer canned, like the optic nerve running through the center of the eye, creating a blind spot, or the fact that we use the same general tube for eating and breathing, thus ensuring that a certain percentage of us will choke to death.

But I want to point but where I think god screwed up when designing his religion. Specifically, I think he really dropped the ball on the nature and proscriptions regarding sex. It would have been much more conducive to religion if he had made sex painful and uncomfortable. Let me explain.

God made sex feel good. I mean really goood. Buy-products-you-don't-need-to-impress-can't-keep-your-hands-off-yourself good. Then he put restrictions on when, how, and who you can do it with. This means that humans will want to have lots of sex. Proir to family planning, this means large families and lots of children. Now those who follow the Judeo-Chrisitian religion, operate under restrictions that other groups may not have. Naturally, the population of unbelievers will increase at an equal rate, if not an accelerated rate compared to god's followers, beause they enjoy sex too, and may not have any restrictions. Plus, those restrictions on sex have got to be difficult when trying to convert some orgy-loving pagan.

Now consider if sex felt bad. I mean really bad and uncomfortable. You may think that the human population would die off. Here's the caveat: Instead of prohibitions, god tells his people to have sex at least once a week. They are still demonstrating their dedication and controlling their flesh. But the real important part is that those who worship god and keep his commandments would be much more likely to reproduce than non-believers. After all, I'm sure there wasn't a lot of non-hebrew tribes circumsising themselves.

Non-believers like me would probably choose comfort and not feel compelled to obey the commandment to engage in this odious and painful practice called sex. Our line would die. Judeo-Christian relgion would be constantly renewing itself and perpetuating itself. Eventually, the human population would be almost universally made up of god followers.

By making sex fun and restricting it, instead of making it painful and requiring it, he guaranteed that the world would be populated with non-believers, which he then had to order his people to exterminate through genocide, until he let his people get conquered. That entire conflict could have been avoided. Now that I think about it, restricting enjoyable sex, or requiring painful sex, makes god seem a bit sadistic. But still, at least all the conflicts with unbelievers could have been minimized. Instead, we're all screwing and thus screwed.

Of course, from the standpoint of evolution, sex being fun makes perfect sense. But that's just crazy talk.

Ignorfamous

When did ignorance become fashionable? Was Reagan a trendsetter when he stated that "Facts are stupid things"?

Words like elitists and intellectuals have now become pejorative? I've met a lot of "Soccer moms" and "Joe Six-Packs" in my life, growing up in the rural south. Most of them are good hard-working people. But most of them are not brilliant. By definition, most people are average. I don't want average Americans to be in any important position, and especially not tasked with running the nation. I want the best and brightest.

Part of the problem is arrogance. I am always astounded at the number of people who believe they know as much as any expert on any topic. News Flash: YOU DON'T. You can argue evolution with a biologist. If you're not a biologist, you probably don't know enough to even understand why you're wrong. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to let an ivy league economist rebuild the transmission in your car. But likewise, it's not a good idea to let your mechanic decide fiscal policy for the nation.

Similarly, most meteorlogical and climate scientists have the personality of a piece of cardboard. They would be terrible as radio or tv personalities. Likewise radio and tv personalities make terrible scientists. Most of them couldn't find their ass with a mirror and a map. But yet we constantly hear media personalities comment on how scientists are wrong.



The survey question which resulted in the chart above was:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Look at how those most knowledgeable are more likely to arrive at the same conclusion: Yes. And while ignorance increases, so does division and uncertainty. This is the effect of those with the least knowledge being more adept at presenting their message- and the public should do a better job of 1) doing their own research, and 2) listening to the experts rather than the pundits.

If we treat the best and brightest among us as undesirables, somehow deserving of scorn, then we are destined to lose our place in the world, succumbing to the weight of our own arrogant ignorance.