AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

he could not obtain a majority of the Democrats in Congress to vote for his anti descrimination laws.

he could not obtain a majority of the Democrats in Congress to vote for his anti descrimination laws.

The original House version:[11]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%–39%)

Cloture in the Senate:[12]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)

The Senate version:[11]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)


The Senate version, voted on by the House:[11]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)

DISCLOSE Act is back - Freedom of speech in danger


Harry Reid is trying to shove through ANOTHER bill that has nothing to do with jobs or
the economy. He is attempting to force the DISCLOSE Act through once more, hoping
that this time he can convince one more Senator to say yes.

As a reminder, the DISCLOSE Act -

Exempts unions from many of the restrictions that would be placed on other groups who
are trying to influence elections

Exempts extremely large groups that have existed for years and years from many of the
restrictions that would be placed on newly formed groups such as ours

Would be implemented in time for this November's elections, just in time to help
incumbents stay in power

Creates two tiers of freedom of speech, particularly political speech - some of us would
be restricted while others will not be

Is it a coincidence that Harry Reid is attempting to shove this down our throats just
two days after Tea Party Patriots announces the $1 million donation?

Is it also a coincidence that the Democrats are waiting to vote on the DISCLOSE Act
until after they attend a high-dollar fundraiser tonight? You decide.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19848&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
How Seniors Will Pay for ObamaCare
The cost of ObamaCare will be quite high for some people, says John C. Goodman, president, CEO and Kellye Wright Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

By 2017, thousands of people in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio will be paying more than $5,000 a year in lost health care benefits to make ObamaCare possible, according to a study published this month by Robert Book at the Heritage Foundation and James Capretta at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

For some New York City dwellers, the figure will exceed $6,000 a year.

Residents of Ascension, La., will pay more than $9,000 in lost benefits.

Who are these people? These are the enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans. In many areas, Medicare Advantage enrollees will lose about one-third or more of their health-insurance benefits, says Goodman.


Ostensibly, Medicare Advantage plans do everything President Obama says he wants to accomplish with health reform, including provide subsidized coverage to low- and moderate-income people and no pre-existing condition limitations.

On measures of quality and efficiency, they also score well. According to a study published in June by the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans:

Medicare Advantage enrollees had 33 percent more doctor visits (presumably representing more primary care), yet experienced 18 percent fewer hospital days and 10 percent fewer hospital admissions than conventional Medicare patients.

They had 27 percent fewer emergency room visits, 13 percent fewer avoidable admissions, and 42 percent fewer readmissions.

According to a report published in April by the Medicare Office of the Actuary, about 7.4 million people who would have been enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans in 2017 will lose their coverage completely. Those who are able to retain their coverage will lose significant benefits.

To those who view this as an entitlement wash, don't be misled. Many of the seniors losing their health plans will enroll in taxpayer-funded Medicaid, in addition to Medicare, says Goodman.

Source: John C. Goodman, "How Seniors Will Pay for ObamaCare," Wall Street Journal, September 23, 2010.

But, ultimately, Democrat does not equal liberal

Reread Ninteen Eighty-Four which is about people like you: Big Brother and the Party spying in the bedrooms, denying education, promoting stupidity.

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/

George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, Part III, Chapter IV, wrote:

Leader says to plainoldme, Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense. Leader said, 'I could float off this floor like a soap bubble' ... I plainoldme, a MALL (i.e., Modern American Leftist Liberal) thinks, 'If Leader THINKS he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously THINK I see him do it, then the thing happens.' Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into plainoldme's mind: 'It doesn't really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.' Plainoldme pushed the thought under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere or other, outside oneself, there was a 'real' world where 'real' things happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.

Plainoldme had no difficulty in disposing of the fallacy, and plainoldme was in no danger of succumbing to it. Plainoldme realized, nevertheless, that it ought never to have occurred to her . The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. CRIMESTOP, they called it in Newspeak.

insertions by ican