LAND OF THE FREE, NO MAKE THAT OF THE FREELOADER!-ALSO THE REASON NEWSPAPERS ARE NOT SELLING-THEY ONLY HAVE ADS, AND LITTLE NEWS!

All those billions and billions of STIMULUS money, your money going down a seemingly bottomless pit. Do you feel the redistribution of your money?

Did you or your family feel any of the stimulus yet?

The administration's promises of a quick fix looks like a thud, a dud.

Today, there are signs of a forced health care program for everyone proposed by Senator Kennedy and other administration officials. Nobody has looked at how "well" that has worked in Massachusetts, where the program is bankrupting itself as well as the entire state.

Kennedy wants to force all employers to pay into a program for health care if the employer does not provide it directly through the job.

Oh and also, all prior health issues would be assumed...has anyone even considered that cost to an employer?

Would an employer hire a new employee who needs the health care, and let's just assume that it is a family plan, and let's assume that it will cost the employer $1,000 a month. So why would someone hire a worker who is paid $1,500 a month, when another $1,000 needs to be paid for the health care?

Now proposals are being thrown around that the entire health care program can be funded by taxing high income people! Yeah, right!

Let's not get complacent thinking that the government, which has to date produced nothing but failed or bankrupt programs, is somehow going to provide a successful health care program that will provide excellent care for LESS money?

Where is the cool aid that they are drinking?

The other hidden agenda is to provide care for undocumented aliens within this program. What's that all about?

Can someone justify the recovery of the economy as a result of this health care proposal?

How is that an unemployed worker in the auto industry for instance, going to benefit
from being forced into paying health care premiums, or that person's future employer wanting to hire him?.

The Massachusetts Health Reform Law of 2006 expanded Medicaid coverage for the poor and made available subsidized, Medicaid-like coverage for additional poor and near-poor residents of the state. It also mandated that middle-income uninsured people either purchase private health insurance or pay a substantial fine ($1,068 in 2009). Smaller fines (up to $295 per employee) were also levied on employers who fail to offer insurance benefits.

The reform law has not achieved universal health insurance coverage, although half or more of the previously uninsured now have some type of insurance policy.

The reform failed to reduce overreliance on expensive, high-technology services. Indeed, some of its provisions such as changes in Medicaid rates and cuts to safety-net providers (who do more primary care) have further tilted health spending toward expensive, high-technology care.

A single-payer system of non-profit national health insurance could save about $8-$10 billion annually in the state through reduced administrative costs. This money could be used to cover all of the state's uninsured residents and to improve coverage for those who now have insurance, without any increase in total health care costs.

The Massachusetts reform law is not providing universal access to care, even in a state with highly favorable circumstances, including previously high levels of spending on health care for the poor, high personal incomes, and low rates of uninsurance. It is not a model for the nation.
See also:
Proposal for Single-Payer National Health Insurance
Source: Journal of the American Medical Association

Did anyone notice the election in Europe that bounced out the Socialists throughout the continent? Thus Socialists are out everywhere, except in the USA where they are now in.

LET'S WATCH THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE SKYROCKET EACH MONTH NOW. REMEMBER WE HAVE MILLIONS OF COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES STARTING WORK (WANTING TO START) OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.

This group will not be shown in the unemployment rolls since they have not yet worked, so the number will not really reflect the real state of the economy.

The bigger question would be where will they be working?

An interesting note on this subject. This last Sunday, I pulled out the JOBS section from the usually thick Sunday newspaper. That jobs section was thin, it had very few jobs posted. In fact, based on a metropolitan area of millions of people, this was stunning to me, that the jobs advertised contained a few hundred listings!

Most of the longest sections were in health care, nursing, truck drivers and "commission" type of sales positions.

Industrial jobs, executive jobs and the like were conspicuous by their absence.

I remember that this was one of the biggest sections in the paper.

I did not feel stimulated.

Then as a curiosity, based on all the sad news about the decline in readership of newspapers, I paid special attention to all news sections of the paper.

It became obvious to me why the papers were failing (this one is in bankruptcy itself too).

The first page had basically a headline story and continued on some further page, and the other story on the front page was of dubious interest.

Then as I turned the pages of the first section, the news stories were very light, and over-shadowed by gigantic ads which took up most of the pages, of each succeeding page. Some of the pages had a single skinny column of a news story overshadowed by a mattress ad,another a cell phone ad, and so on.

I was finished reading the first section in a matter of about 2 minutes!

The other sections were not news, other than a short BUSINESS SECTION that seemed to rehash old news of the week that I already read in internet news headlines.

So I asked myself why would I want to pay that much for the paper from which I literally got no news? was i PAYING FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF SEEING ADS?

It seems that way...so forget about newspapers in the future...just not worth the $1.75 to get the "news" and lots of ads.

Please don't let us hear that the government will lend money to the newspapers!