User:Rafael

I believe Conservapedia can become a significant online resource for everyone. It has already changed my thinking about science and, in particular, has helped me to understand why evolutionism is wrong.

Although I am not a conservative in the US sense, I am shifting that way and I believe the Truth is the Truth is the Truth and everything else is interpretation. There is far too much interpretation on the web and this site can help to correct the balance.

At the moment, I am mainly factchecking in my areas of knowledge: literature, Europe and European history and politics.

I am very busy with my day jobs at the moment, but hope to contribute detailed entries soon.

I am based in the UK.

God bless.

View the original article here

Why Medicaid Expansion Is Still Wrong for the States

Governor John Kasich now joins the list of governors that are looking to expand their Medicaid programs. In some instances, the logic of such a decision makes sense. Democratic governors have traditionally supported expanding the role of Medicaid. But the decision by Republican governors, such as Governor Jan Brewer (Ariz.), Governor Jack Dalrymple (N.D.), Governor Susana Martinez (N.M.), Governor Brian Sandoval (R., Nev.), and now Governor John Kasich (R., Ohio), is puzzling.

Like most government programs, Medicaid promises more than it delivers. While it consumes an ever increasing portion of state budgets — crowding out other state priorities, such as education and transportation — its track record for delivering quality health care to those in need falls short. Endorsing the expansion ignores these underlying problems and in some instances seems to make them worse.

Of these five Republican governors, four joined the lawsuit against the Obama administration regarding the coercive nature of the Medicaid expansion. It is troubling that now that the Medicaid expansion has been deemed voluntary not mandatory by the Supreme Court, these governors are perfectly happy to have the federal government coerce them into the expansion with the enticement of new federal dollars.

Second, many of these governors argue that the Medicaid expansion is actually good fiscal policy. These governors may be looking at a short-term bump in new federal dollars, but the longer view shows that over time this new revenue disappears and the cost of expansion continues to rise. A recent study in support of the expansion in Ohio supports this conclusion. There are also many underlying assumptions that raise further questions related to the true cost of the expansion.

One is the assumption that the federal funding will remain constant. However, here too the longer view indicates the opposite. As federal policymakers debate the course for fixing the country’s fiscal woes, it is inevitable that if these efforts are serious, entitlement programs such as Medicaid will need to be on the table. Although the administration is trying to distance itself from its previous recommendations on federal financing of Medicaid, it is impossible to guarantee that the federal dollars will remain untouched.

Some governors have made their willingness to expand the program contingent on the federal government’s keeping its funding promises. They that if the federal funding changes, the states will opt out of the expansion. Such an opt-out strategy seems difficult. It is the exception not the norm for a state to scale back its Medicaid program. As a matter of fact, while there may be periods of slowing enrollment, overall enrollment continues to climb. From a practical position, it also remains unclear the process by which a state would opt out and the role that the secretary of HHS would have in that process.

Some expansion supporters argue that choosing not to expand Medicaid would mean that a state opting out would just be leaving money on the table, and that this money will include money from the non-expanding state’s federal taxpayers. Rather than a race to the bottom to scoop up as much federal tax dollars as possible in support of a program with poor results, the better solution would be for the states to recommend that Congress eliminate the enhanced federal matching funds. That would remove the temptation of federal dollars to do bad policy.

By 2017, one in four Americans is expected to be on Medicaid. In states that are trying to jumpstart their economy, it seems governors should be working to reduce dependence on the welfare state, not add millions more to it. It should be focused on getting people back to work, not creating incentives that keep people out of work. And states should be focused on fixing the program for those who are on it today rather than dumping more people into an already broken government program.

There needs to be a better solution. Simply because a governor wants to expand Medicaid doesn’t mean the legislature has to agree. State officials should be advancing reforms at the state level that move Medicaid in the right direction, not the wrong one.

— Nina Owcharenko is Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies and the Preston A. Wells Jr. Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

View the original article here

Cramer’s Favorite Big Pharma Catch-Up Play

Here's why Cramer is bullish on Merck:

The company is finally over the patent cliff and on solid ground. "Right now, going forward, of all the big pharma companies Merck has the least exposure to drugs losing patent protection and going generic. That's huge," said Cramer.

Merck has a broad portfolio of products. "That includes a decent-sized animal health business that they could spin-off," Cramer said. "They also have a big and rapidly growing diabetes business and a vaccine division that's also growing fast."

Merck has an incredibly deep pipeline. "Merck has 35 drug candidates in phase 2 or phase 3 development—that's the second most of any pharmaceutical company out there," Cramer said. "Within their late-stage pipeline, the company has 16 phase 3 programs, the last phase before a drug can come up for FDA approval. And of those 16, there are five drugs that could be approved this year."

-------------------------------------------------------------
Read More from Mad Money with Jim Cramer
Cramer: Don't Misjudge the Market
Cramer: Oil & Gas Takeout Targets
These Stocks Should Be Bought Aggressively
-------------------------------------------------------------

What's the bottom line?

As drugs such as Merck's new ragweed allergy medication or its ovarian cancer drug get FDA approval, Cramer thinks Merck will come back into favor with the Street – not only will investors see new profit potential but they'll also be drawn by the 3.75% yield.

And as that happens, Cramer anticipates something called a reversion to the mean trade. That is, Cramer thinks this laggard will play a big game of catch-up as the Street assigns Merck a similar premium to its big pharma brethren.

View the original article here

White House On Defense After Sebelius Remark On Health Law

The White House insisted on Wednesday that healthcare costs are falling after a member of President Obama’s Cabinet said some people could see their insurance premiums rise under the Affordable Care Act.

"I would actually point to the results that we're already seeing from the Affordable Care Act, which is a savings of $2.1 billion, and the analysis from the [Congressional Budget Office] that actually says, in the future, we're gonna see rates that are lower for higher benefits," deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday.

Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters late Tuesday that “there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market" where "folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time," according to The Wall Street Journal.

That made Sebelius the first Obama administration official to acknowledge that insurance premiums could increase under the law.

Earnest said he had not read Sebelius’s remarks, but pointed to a blog post from Alan Krueger, the chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, about the slowed growth of healthcare spending in recent years.

"[He] said that, 'Each year from 2009 to 2011 national health expenditure data shows the real rate of annual growth in overall health spending was between 3 percent and 3.1 percent,' which is actually the lowest rate of growth since reporting began in 1960," Earnest said, sidestepping the question of whether there will be an increase in premium costs for some people as a result of the law.

Earnest provided a sharper critique of a report by the Society of Actuaries that showed insurers would be on the hook an average 32 percent more per claims on individual insurance policies because of the law. The study also suggested those cost increases would be passed along to some consumers.

The White House spokesman said he wasn't "particularly surprised" that a study "conducted by a health insurance company that's critical of the Affordable Care Act" would come up with such results.

"The reason that the Affordable Care Act was put in place was to ensure that we were expanding access to healthcare for every American, but also because we wanted to actually protect consumers who were repeatedly victimized by insurance companies," Earnest said. "So it's not particularly surprising to me that an insurance company would conduct a study that was critical of a piece of legislation that was promising to hold them accountable for their actions."

Major parts of the healthcare law are slated for implementation next year. Republican critics have argued that the bill will result in increased rates, especially in the individual and small-group insurance markets.

In the same interview where she conceded that premiums could rise, Sebelius argued individuals "are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they're spending," and said government subsidies would help offset some price increases.

View Comments

View the original article here

Cultural Revolution

(Difference between revisions)The '''"Cultural Revolution"''' was a disastrous attempt to reform the economics, education and politics of Communist China, which led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.The '''"Cultural Revolution"''' was a disastrous attempt to reform the economics, education and politics of Communist China, which led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.The upheaval  began in August of 1966 by Chinese Chairman [[Mao Zedong]].  The upheaval  began in August of 1966 by Chinese Chairman [[Mao Zedong]].  His objective was to replace leaders with people who would think like him and be supportive of him as Chairmen, make the [[Chinese Communist Party]] function the way he wanted, give the Chinese youth a revolutionary experience, and make changes so that education, health care, and cultural systems would be for the entirety of China and not just for the elite.  His objective was to replace leaders with people who would think like him and be supportive of him as Chairmen, make the [[Chinese Communist Party]] function the way he wanted, give the Chinese youth a revolutionary experience, and make changes so that education, health care, and cultural systems would be for the entirety of China and not just for the elite. In order to do this, he began to establish a cult towards himself. His party would be forced to support him as he had little patience for opponents during what he believe to be the pinnacle point of China's future as a communist state. He quickly began a system of purges to cleanse of any unwanted opposition toward him or to the gang of four, especially after he was embarrassed with the part rejecting his great leap forward policieshttp://asianhistory.about.com/od/modernchina/f/What-Was-The-Cultural-Revolution.htmMao Zedong wanted the Cultural Revolution to affect everyone in China but it mostly affected those in urban places.Mao Zedong wanted the Cultural Revolution to affect everyone in China but it mostly affected those in urban places.Like [[Job]], he feared that "my life is wind: mine eye shall no more see good."[http://scripturetext.com/job/7-7.htm (Job 7:7)]Like [[Job]], he feared that "my life is wind: mine eye shall no more see good."[http://scripturetext.com/job/7-7.htm (Job 7:7)]The end of the Cultural Revolution came about with death of Mao Zedong in 1977.There had been disagreement over the end of the Cultural Revolution. With the death of Mao Zedong in 1977 there was little reason for it to continue. Moreover, with the arrest of the Gang of Fourhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/special_report/1999/09/99/china_50/cult.htm, the elite of the communist party who were overthrown by their own Party. However,1968 has also been given as a date as, with the arrest of Liu Shao-chi, Mao would have no reason to continue the revolution.http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cultural_revolution.htm.

The "Cultural Revolution" was a disastrous attempt to reform the economics, education and politics of Communist China, which led to the deaths of tens of millions of people. The upheaval began in August of 1966 by Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong. His objective was to replace leaders with people who would think like him and be supportive of him as Chairmen, make the Chinese Communist Party function the way he wanted, give the Chinese youth a revolutionary experience, and make changes so that education, health care, and cultural systems would be for the entirety of China and not just for the elite. In order to do this, he began to establish a cult towards himself. His party would be forced to support him as he had little patience for opponents during what he believe to be the pinnacle point of China's future as a communist state. He quickly began a system of purges to cleanse of any unwanted opposition toward him or to the gang of four, especially after he was embarrassed with the part rejecting his great leap forward policies[1] Mao Zedong wanted the Cultural Revolution to affect everyone in China but it mostly affected those in urban places.

In August 1966 all schools were closed. During this time Mao told the Red Guards to question things that traditionally had great value and importance, and question the activities of government officials by slighting them in a way that was visible to all. This resulted in the harm and even death of many people. In the end, Mao Zedong achieved none of what he wanted.

He began this revolution in his last ten years of power because he feared that China would become like the Soviet Union and that he might have a bad, if any, place in history.

Like Job, he feared that "my life is wind: mine eye shall no more see good."[2]

There had been disagreement over the end of the Cultural Revolution. With the death of Mao Zedong in 1977 there was little reason for it to continue. Moreover, with the arrest of the Gang of Four[3], the elite of the communist party who were overthrown by their own Party. However,1968 has also been given as a date as, with the arrest of Liu Shao-chi, Mao would have no reason to continue the revolution.[4].

View the original article here

Rand Paul Falsely Says He Never Opposed The Civil Rights Act

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964's bans on whites-only lunch counters and discrimination by private employers. We know this because there are multiple videos of him opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964's bans on whites-only lunch counters and discrimination by private employers. Here’s video of him saying it to a Kentucky paper’s editorial board. Here’s a lengthy interview where he tries to defend his opposition to the Civil Rights Act to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. Here’s video from just last year of him defending his father’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act (according to Rand Paul, “it’s not all about race relations, it’s about controlling property, ultimately.”) Still don’t believe that Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act? You can watch this embedded video of Paul saying that “the hard part about believing in freedom” is that you have to oppose the Civil Rights Act:

Nor is this a particularly new position for Sen. Paul. In a 2002 letter to his hometown newspaper, Paul wrote that “[a] free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination – even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.”

So it is a bit baffling that Paul told an audience at the historically black Howard University today that he actually believes something else:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a proponent of civil liberties, told a professor on Wednesday that he never opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act. Ever,” he said during a question and answer session at the historically black Howard University in Washington.

“This was on tape,” countered the questioner.

“I have been concerned about the ramifications of the Civil Rights Act beyond race…but I’ve never come out in opposition,” Paul clarified.

Again, Paul has never said that he is “concerned about the ramifications of the Civil Rights Act beyond race.” He’s said — repeatedly, over a period of many years, and sometimes on video — that he opposes applying federal civil rights law to private businesses, such as the private business where this picture was taken:

View the original article here

Not Enough Doctors In Medicaid, State Director Says

View the original article here