There's the big pharmaceutical industries. Then there are the medical insurance companies without 'Obamacare' who would get to cherry pick from those who have no employer based medical coverage.
Another enemy of 'ObamaCare' is congress who's members depend on campaign contributions from these groups. Congressional members who are under constant bombardment from the lobby groups funded by the billions of dollars invested by special interest groups determined to keep the status quo.
Perhaps the biggest reason of all are the Republicans who are determined to win back the White House at all cost. There is no larger nor determined group to see 'ObamaCare' fail then they. Even if they have to shutdown government then blame Obama for it. It's simply unimaginable for them to allow Obama's signature piece of legislation to stand. The logic being once 'ObamaCare' fully kicks in, many Americans will start seeing their yearly medical insurance premiums going down as much as $10,000 a year. That makes for a pretty tough argument for booting Democrats out of the oval office and congress.
Is it any wonder people are turned off after seeing unending deceptive advertisements costing millions of dollars each year in an attempt to derail 'ObamaCare'.
I won't pretend to know whether everything about the 'Affordable Care Act' is hunky dory. I'm sure there are more then a few parts that still need fine tuning. One thing I'm certain of, it's not as bad as we've been told by those benefiting greatly under the current way we are paying for medical coverage. Of that you can be sure!
These were the main points I wanted to make. However for those who would prefer a longer read, here are some more goodies....
EXTRA READ
New York Magazine- "Obamacare Still Not Collapsing", "The employer mandate that the Obama administration is delaying is not a central part of the law. You could repeal it without any functional changes to the guts of the law"
Forbes, "The Congressional Budget Office, in a 2012 report, argued that employers do not have a large incentive to dump workers’ coverage. And even if employers dropped coverage for an additional 20 million workers relative to the CBO’s projections, the deficit would not increase, says the CBO, because the subsidies paid to low-income workers would be offset by an increase in tax revenue from lower utilization of the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance... If you like Obamacare, and you want it to work, you don’t need the employer mandate.
No all the investors in hospitals are against the new healthcare law. 'The Raw Story' reports Hospital investors ‘sold’ on Obamacare despite bumps. "They expect company earnings to strengthen as more Americans gain insurance coverage and hospitals lose less money treating the uninsured... The biggest benefit from health reform is expected to be an influx of patients whose treatment will be paid for either through expanded Medicaid programs or with private insurance obtained from state-based exchanges that will take effect on January 1. That should help drive down the percentage of revenue now being written off as bad debt for treating the uninsured, which can be up to 20 percent or greater for some hospital chains.
SOME FINAL WORDS This legislation is extremely complex. Some of it is good. Some of it not so good. There is big money riding on this thing. There sure are bunch of loud mouths shouting too. At the end of the day both are trying to appeal to peoples' raw emotions and preconceived beliefs. When this happens, the facts are largely overshadowed and buried. One needs to dig and sort things out for themselves.
I'd be willing to bet 90% of my readers never got this far into reading my post. I've been told numerous times to keep it to one paragraph. For the vast majority of people reading anything more then 10 sentences would be like waterboarding. This holds true when I read my stats. Be that as it may, it can't be said I didn't take thrice the time it would take for even a lazy person to read.
In a few days the U.S. Congress will be going into recess. Except for two sessions in the 'House of Representatives' on Thursday, August 1st and Friday, August 2nd both the senate and house are taking off the entire month of August. When they return on September 9th they will be facing a grueling 9 day schedule for the entire month of September.
When congress returns it will be facing the deadline for funding the United States. Failure to pass legislation will result in shutting down the government. Congress also has to enact legislation that would raise the budget caps both due by October 1st. This leaves them only 12 sessions between today Monday, July 29th and October 1st to figure things out.
Getting this work done isn't looking to too promising. According to an article Sarah Jones wrote for 'Politicus USA' on July 2nd congress only managed to pass 15 actual bills up until that time. It's no wonder. This bunch only scheduled themselves to get together only 4 months this year for a total of 126 sessions.
It isn't like congress was lazy as some accuse. They managed to vote 40 times against 'National Healthcare" despite knowing it was DOA in the Senate. Even if they could get it past the Senate there's no way in Hell the President would sign it. According to 'Govtrack', "Around 10,000 bills and resolutions are considered by the U.S. Congress in each two-year session, but of those only about 4% will become law." You know important things like..Point is, I have no problem with congress not passing another bunch of laws that most likely would only mucky things up anyway. What I do have a problem with is their callous disregard with the things that need to be done. Things like screwing around with the U.S. budget till the last minute before there's a government shutdown. Playing politics (with Obama) by forcing sequester to continue into 2014 . A move that according to the CBO could cost us up to 1.6 million jobs.
I have rather a simple theory. More governments have collapsed throughout history from within then by outside enemies. One of the most effective ways to defeat one's enemy isn't through the use of military force but rather by collapsing its economy. The United States tries to employ this method all the time through the use of embargos on other nations.
It's all fine and dandy to try and defeat the other political party in this manner, but when does it cross the line and we end up jeopardizing our nation's own well being?
Whoever is President represents not only their political party affiliation but also the American people. When congress ends up hamstringing the President, does it not also take down the American people who elected that person right along with him?
Many may see congress as nothing more the bunch of politicians blowing hot air. Not I. I view this current batch of legislators far more the that. They are playing games that could end up threatening the continued existence of the United States more then those who dare war against us.
The Daily Show - A$$holes Wanted for Congress 07/25/13
Over the hot spell I noticed that my electrical voltage dropped back to around 115 volts in the day. At night it returned to around 120 volts. Now it may seem like 4.17%. isn't a big deal, but consider this. The average 10,000 air conditioner uses from 8 to 10 amperes. The wattage (that which you pay for in your electric bill) used is between 960 watts and 1,200 watts to power this size air conditioner when voltage is at 120 volts. However at 115 volts the power consumed then becomes between 920 watts and 1,150 watts. (Power=Voltage x Current).
When the utility company reduces power the wattage that you are billed is reduced accordingly. This on the surface seems fair since I am getting less I am therefore paying less. However here's the rub. At 115 volts you are getting only 9,583 BTU's worth of cooling out of the 10,000 BTU's the air conditioner was designed to deliver. OK, so you say what's the problem with that, the AC will run 4.17% longer to get to where it needs to go. NOT SO!
I don't want to get all technical, but the fact of the matter is that electric motors lose efficiency (horsepower) when their voltages are reduced. This isn't in direct proportion to the 4.17% we are discussing. It exceeds that.
Air conditioners lose further efficiency in another way. Again without getting all technical. There is a certain amount of refrigerant allowed to flow between the high side (condensation coil) and the low side (evaporation coil). If this flow is reduced (by less horsepower coming from the compressor motor) there is further reduction in an AC's cooling efficiency in most home units.
As you can see when the power company drops back just 5 volts AC's suffer. The compressor motor not only produces disportionately less horsepower, in turn delivers less refrigerant at lower differential pressures then it does when voltages are at 120 volts (where it was designed to run most efficiently). This results in less cooling even if it runs 4.17% longer.
It may very well be that power companies need to protect their grid with 'brownouts'. But it doesn't hurt their bottom line either if customers are using more electric then they would have otherwise at 120 volts. Summertime also is usually the time they shut down turbines for maintenance. Maybe this helps pay for that, eh?
Something both 'The Morning Call' & 'Express-Times' may want to consider. Here's what 'The Spring River Chronicle' in Arkansas has been doing since June 2011..
The First Fully Interactive Newspaper in the U.S.
Since that time there's been even greater advancements made. By using conductive inks with standardized printing methods a reader can simply push an icon in their newspaper and with the proper software, it will transmit to their iPad or SmartPhone.
Think about the possibilities. By utilizing SmartPhones and iPad apps newspapers could offer updates to the story, discussion rooms, comments, sharing what a reader read with others, direct feedback (either by texting or speaking) to the reporter. The publisher would have the stats on just how many times an article was read.
Advertisers (for a premium) could have all these things offered to them as well. Perhaps charged for each feature they'd like to have for themselves. This all in one place simply by pressing or scanning an icon printed or embedded in the published article or advertisement.
All of this leads to further opportunities for monetizing. Face it, the next generation is glued to their electronic devices and are no longer content with just glaring at newsprint. They want to socially interact with it.
The question I ask myself is why haven't more newspapers done this? It's not like I'm brilliant. Instead of sitting around spinning their wheels and whining about the good old days, get the cobwebs out of their heads. Gutenberg invented a press which was cutting edge technology in it's day. He used his head and created a break through that enabled newspapers to be printed en masse. Are there no more great minds down at the newspapers that can think beyond doing things as they've always done them? If this is so, then newspapers will continue to 'wither on the vine'.
