Now We Know What's In The Bill. Or Do We?

Here are four words I never thought I'd think, much less type: Nancy Pelosi was right.

On March 9, 2010, Speaker Pelosi (who I'm pretty sure is missing a human soul and warms her body by sunning herself on a rock) gave a little speech to the Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties and during said speech, she actually said what I thought might have been the most ridiculous thing to ever come out of her mouth. She said, in reference to the then-pending health care bill, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". Um, what now?

That's what she said. I swear. The text of the entire speech is over at her website. That particular little gem is about six paragraphs up from the bottom. But it turns out, she was right. How did I determine that? I came to that conclusion after reading an article by the extremely talented reporter William La Jeunesse of Fox News. The article outlined a provision of the bill, which is now law, called the Class Act, "...otherwise known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act" which "...is the federal government's first long-term care insurance program."

Now, why we didn't hear about this beforehand is beyond me. No, wait. No, it's not. We didn't hear about it because people out there in the media are simply not doing their jobs. It's not like this bill wasn't available for review beforehand. (Right? It was available, right?) Granted, the thing clocked in at over 2,000 pages long. Am I supposed to read all of those 2,000 pages? Technically, I think that I should want to. And don't get me wrong, I DO want to want to. I DON'T want to, though. But again, technically, I don't think that I should have to. (Don't get me started on how I don't think that ANYTHING should be 2,000 pages long, unless it's a document telling me how great I am, and even then that would be pushing it. My greatness can easily be summed up in a thousand pages or so.) It's not my JOB to read the damn thing. That's the job of the media. Their job is to report. They can't report unless they know what they're reporting on. The only way to know that is to do their damn job and read all 2,000 freaking pages. But no one did, otherwise we would have heard about this before now.

Ready for this? I hope you're either sitting down or sharpening your pitchfork tines. "...The program will allow workers to have an average of roughly $150 or $240 a month, based on age and salary, automatically deducted from their paycheck to save for long-term care." Wait. What now? How much? A month?!

Now, call me silly, but can't you get long term care from the insurance that you're already supposed to be mandated to be purchasing thanks to the passage of the health care bill? I'm thinking that something along those lines would make the most sense. Ohh. That's why they didn't do it that way. It would have made sense. Carry on.

Now, this is a policy where you are automatically opted into unless you opt out. That is the complete opposite of what I thought that things were supposed to be being done. I thought it was supposed to be that you were automatically opted out of something unless you wanted to opt in. Oh, right. That's for things that the federal government isn't trying to siphon money from you for. Got it.

According to William's article, here are some of the more pressing details that you need to know about:

The deduction will work on a sliding scale based on age. Younger workers will be charged less, older workers more. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the average monthly deduction at $146. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services put it higher, at $240. Wait. The CBO and the Medicare/Medicaid folks have figures that differ in cost of around a hundred bucks? Shocking, I know. Who am I going to believe? I'm going to go with the Medicare/Medicaid folks, as they are already ridiculously underpaid, thus the CBO's low estimate would seem to be wrong, all things considered. I'm also going to with with how that seems like an awful lot of money to be deducted monthly from folks. (And just remember, those figures are an "average". That means that some people will pay more than that and some people will pay less than that. My guess is that some people will pay much, much less.)

After a five-year vesting period, enrollees who need help bathing, eating or dressing will be eligible to take out benefits, estimated to be around $75 a day for in-home care. Only a five year vesting period? And then you're good? How do they figure that? By my calculations (and I'll go with the higher figure just to give them the benefit of the doubt), if you're paying in $240 a month, after five years, you'll have contributed $14,400. At benefits of $75 a day that you can tap if you need to after those five years, you'll have yourself a whopping 192 days of care. That's not a full year. That's barely over six months. Now, I don't know what your definition of "long term care" is, but mine is definitely more than six months. Six months isn't what I'd call "long term". Six months is "just gettin' started".

Here's the other frightening part of this: The money that is put into this fund (generously and likely erroneously estimated to be $109 billion in collected premiums by 2019 after being implemented as early as 2012) will not be in a "lockbox" sort of situation. No, it's going to be more of a general fund sort of situation. You know how Social Security money is supposed to be just for Social Security? You know how the Social Security funds have been tapped by everything else AND how it will give out more than it takes in next year? You know how that works? Sure you do. Now, do you expect that this thing will work any differently? Of course you don't. Thus, it's going to end up being what? A mitigated disaster, that is correct.

Of course "The statute says the program is designed to be self-sustaining, with an advisory board to assure the fund remains solvent. But opponents say the fine print already tells another story. Unless modifications are made, according to a CBO analysis of the bill, "the program will add to future federal budget deficits in a large and growing fashion." Sounds great. Good thing that this was passed into law so that we could find out that this was in it!

Since I enjoy math and numbers, let's look at a few more, shall we? If this thing starts in 2012, $109 billion in premiums by 2019 equals out to be $15.57 billion a year. If folks are paying $240 a month, that's 5,228,125 people needed to sustain that figure. If folks are paying $146 a year, that's 8,594,178 people needed to sustain that figure. That's a difference of 3,366,053 people. Um, that's kind of a lot. How do they figure this is going to work? AT ALL! And let's not forget, those are the figures to make it all work out without money being drawn out of the fund. Those are just the numbers for money being theoretically deposited into the fund.

But let's say you participate in this charade starting from the time you're 20. And let's say that you're paying the low, low rate of $146 a month. Fast forward forty five years. You're now sixty five and you're going to retire. You'll have amassed for yourself, after forty five years of paying premiums and at the flex-rate of $75 per day allotted to you for long term care, a whopping three years of long term care. Three. Forty five years, $146 a month for a total of $78,840. That gets you three years of in-home long term care. That doesn't seem like a lot to me. Wouldn't you be better off taking that $146 and investing it somewhere or even setting up a 401k type of dealio so that you can take care of your own expenses? Wouldn't that $146 amount to a hell of a lot more than the $78,840 after 45 years? I'm kind of thinking that it would.

This is ridiculous. And it's now law. Congratulations, Nancy Pelosi. Thanks for saddling the country with another obligation that it cannot afford. What in the hell happened to people taking care of themselves when they retire anyway? (Has she not noticed the high unemployment rate which is still besieging the country? Perhaps she has overlooked the still sagging economy? The perpetually high foreclosure rate? And she's thinking that folks in "times like these" are going to be OK with forking over another $200 a month? Not to be unjustifiably disrespectful to the soulless snake, but she's high.)

I don't say things like this very often, but please read William's article and pass it along to your friends. I guarantee that the majority of them, if not all of them, have never heard a single word about this. I guarantee that the majority of them have no idea that they've already been opted into a plan that is going to cost them a minimum of $146 a month unless they opt out. And again, the reason that people don't know this is because people in the media are not doing their job. Well, except for William. William rocks at his job. But everyone else just sucks. I can't wait to find out what else is in the bill now that it's passed into law. How exciting!

We Asked These Protesters....

I love the folks at New Left Media. Did I mention that I love them? I do. I love them. They always seem to be out in force at these major Tea Party gatherings/protest/Band Of Idiots Conventions that are almost inevitable these days whenever there is a major vote in Congress or some major issue brewing about (likely involving Sarah Palin). Apparently New Left Media is just two guys, a one Chase Whiteside and a one Erick Stoll, and a one camera. Their website claims that they "are currently students at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio." I hope that they stay students for a while so that they'll have more time to do stuff like this. Once you graduate and get one of those pesky job things, activities such as theirs tend to disappear. It's unfortunate. Stupid jobs.

Anyway, they've hit upon a formula that, upon first hearing of it, would seem risky. They just show up at some of these larger rallies/powwows and basically ask people "Soooo, whatcha doin'?" Their answers will shock you. (No, they won't. When you realize how many of these people are paste eating mouth breathers, you're not going to be surprised by any of it. You're just going to do what I do and that is to make the wall around your walled-off compound a foot higher and throw a few more gators into the moat. Keep those people away from me.)

Apparently, up on Capitol Hill yesterday, the Tea Party protesters were out in full swing against voting yes on the health care bill (which is so incredibly enormous right now that it can't possibly do any good). And at the same time, the circus was in town. Awesome. Simply awesome. Behold!

To give you a feel for the group as a whole, let's look at some photos, shall we? Here we have a group with some very nice signs being held up. And I will give credit where credit is due here by pointing out that nothing seems to be misspelled. That, in and of itself, lends at least a shred of credibility to the nonsense that you're shouting. But spelling is only going to get you so far. One reads "No more killing of the unborn. Stop Obamacare." Yeah, see, the "killing of the unborn" is going to continue with or without this healthcare dealio. I'm going to throw out a little thing called Roe v. Wade. Perhaps you've heard of it?

What I really like in that photo is this dude here:

He brought a book to read! Just in case that rally didn't have quite enough oomph for him, he wanted to make sure that he wasn't bored. Then there's this next guy, who I'm just going to go ahead and assume is censoring himself. Maybe he had second thoughts about bringing a large placard that read "I WANT MY COUNTRY F**K!" I appreciate the covering up of the F and the U. What? What's that? You think it says "back"? Huh. Maybe. Good point. Whatever. Moving on...

I like the artwork in the one below. (There's nothing I hate more than a hastily scrawled protest sign.) It shows President Barry in a health care bill coffin. He is wearing a tuxedo that seems to indicate that he met his demise right after attending a wedding in 1973.

And speaking of President Barry, it just wouldn't be a protest without at least one chap displaying a sign with a picture of President Barry sporting the Chaplin moustache. I have yet to figure out the connection between Barack Obama and The Little Tramp, but some folks are very adamant that there are similarities. If I figure those out, I'll let you know.

This man is saying that "...government can't run anything effectively." Oh, if they only had a lime green cyclops shirt and a fuzzy blue wizard's cap, that would make things much more effective.

This Maryland Terrapin here made it very clear what he thought about the bill. He said (and I swear to God I'm quoting verbatim), "Three words. Not. Good. For. The. Country." Good Lord, sir. I'll give you that the whole "Three words" tease sounds very dramatic and all. But when you don't actually have only three words, you're really doing yourself more harm than good. And when asked by either Chase or Erick (I don't know which one is which) "What are some of the things in it that you have problems with?" he responded (and I swear to God I'm directly quoting again), "I don't know! I don't know." Am I surprised by that? Not really. I mean, he seems to be having a bit of trouble mastering the whole counting-to-five concept. It's not wonder that he doesn't know what he's doing there.

The chick below I found to be very informative. She seems to know about things in the health care bill that I was completely unaware of! It's a good thing that they caught up with her! When asked if she has other problems with the health care bill, she tells us, "Uh, yeah. Um, that nice little...uh...um...death tax! Where they would send you...where they would rather send you a fifty dollar check for a blue pill, an end of life pill, than, uh, pay for the necessary medical expenses." They what now? They want to send us checks for Viagra? What now? What part of the bill is that in? I missed the Viagra clause.

I love this couple. The matching shirts? Priceless. And check out dude there. He's proudly wearing that G.W. Bush hat atop his head and has a very firm grip on that cigar. Awesome. I might like to live next door to those folks. They seem kooky, but kooky in a good way. I think. (Anytime a couple does the matchy-matchy thing with their wardrobe, it's always a bit troubling for me, but the cigar offsets it a little bit.)

The video of all of this blather is below. It's about nine minutes long. While I enjoyed the view from the front lines, I really could have done without the two paragraphs that they put in the last 30 seconds or so. I get it, I get it. You want the bill to pass.

No @#$&!?* Cussing?!

There's a whole lot of problems going on in California right now. The unemployment rate for the state is hovering somewhere around 12.7. The budget is far from balanced. The state is going broke. The population of illegal immigrants in this state is sky high. And corruption abounds up there in the State Capitol. So with all of that going on, I'm having a really hard time grasping why it is that the California State Assembly passed a resolution making the first week of March "Cuss Free Week". Wait. What now?

Correct. Cuss Free Week. I swear. Now, if you're asking yourself what the #$*! Cuss Free Week is, well, are you in for a surprise. Granted, just because it was passed by the @#*&$! State Assembly doesn't guarantee that it's going to happen. It still have to be passed by the &*%#@ Senate for it to go into effect. But that's not really the crux of my anger over this stupid #*$&%* idea. My anger stems from BS like this getting passed at all.

Why is this $&*@#& necessary?! Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of everyone not cussing. I am not a fan of the swearing (even though I can do so like a sailor). It makes me insane when people are swearing and there are young children around. They don't need to hear that. No one does, really. But that doesn't mean that I want some sort of stupid ass legislation passed as what will amount to nothing more than a free good measure at best. Let's see how this line of BS got started, shall we?

It would seem that the whole idea was inspired by a one McKay Hatch who founded a No Cussing Club at his middle school two years ago. Apparently the feel good idea took off and now his website, Nocussing.com, boasts that there are over 35,000 members worldwide. That's great, I suppose. I will definitely give kudos to McKay for getting this movement started. I'm sure he's been beaten up more times than I can imagine over this (and numerous other things I'm guessing). But let's be realistic. 35,000 worldwide? Listen, there's a Facebook page called "Can this pickle get more fans than Nickleback?" Do you know how many people are a fan of that pickle? 1,529,277 right now as I'm writing this. Over one and a half million folks are a fan of that particular pickle. That is over 43.5 times the number of people worldwide in the No Cussing Club. I'm not trying to diss the No Cussing Club, I'm just trying to put it in effing perspective is all.

The California bill (which is ACR 112. Remember that because you won't find it in any other article you read about this crap, which is why I had to look it up. Can't the Legislature pass a "No Crappy Media Reporting Week"? My God, at least that might get something done.) was written up by Assembly Members Portantino and Smyth. If you are a California voter, please make note of those two names and vote against them when they are up for re-election. We cannot continue to have them in the Assembly wasting the taxpayers money and time on garbage like this. Portantino and Smyth. Don't forget. Out!

Wait. I just read the final version of the bill. There are other co-authors that have climbed aboard this s**t-train. The other coauthors of this piece of crap are: Assembly Members Jones, Solorio, Adams, Beall, Bradford, Caballero, Chesbro, Coto, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Fong, Furutani, Galgiani, Gilmore, Hayashi, Huffman, Jeffries, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Niello, Nielsen, V. Manuel Perez, Salas, Skinner, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, and Yamada. Make a note. Print this out. Vote these folks out of office when that time comes! What a bunch of softheads.

Basically, all the bill does is give you a bunch of flowerly prose on why cussing is bad and how a bunch of people have decided to follow McKay's suggestion and not cuss. It also goes on to say that for the No Cussing Week, that businesses or whatever else you are should have a jar with a label on it available in a public place. That way, if you are guilty of screaming "You stupid M-F-er!!" when the mail clerk mixes up your mail again, you put some monetary amount in the jar. The bill then suggests that at the end of the week, the amount in the jar be donated to a charity. A charity!?

The M-F-ing state is going M-F-ing broke!! And you *!#&^?$#s want to go the money to a bleeping charity?! Why in the world isn't it going back to the M-F-ing bankrupt state?! For cryin' out loud, what is wrong with you a-holes?!

But then I started thinking about it. What if I did want to stop cussing? My BFF has given up cussing for Lent. (It's not going all that great, by the way. Sorry, friend! Heart you!) And she has some spectacular cuss hybrids that she tends spout out when needed. And they are spec-tacular. What is she supposed to use instead? I figured that McKay's website, being as he's so into this being so important and all, would have some suggestions. And I was right. It did have some suggestions. For a price. What the $*?#!@?

That's right. He wants to charge you two bucks to download his e-book which seems to be titled "Oh, Pickles! Sassafras! Barnacles! & other G-rated substitutes for cuss words". I guess you get the three on the cover for free. It claims to have over 100 others inside, but you're going to need to pony up two effing dollars if you want to know those. What a scam.

If you'd like to read this stupid-#$@&^! bill you can find it here. I could go off on a tangent about how something like this could be interpreted as the government trying to censor the people in a land which is ruled by it's First Amendment, that of the right to free speech. I could go off on that tangent. But I'm not going to. That's because I'm way too irate about the Assembly wasting time and money (Good God, how much money is this thing going to cost?!) with something that is feel-good at best. There are REAL PROBLEMS out there to be solved!! Do they need a list?! I'll give them a list and I won't even charge them two bucks for it!!