The trouble with flies
-
Zip It
Archive for June, 2010
June 9, 2010
June 8, 2010
Au revoi Mrs Thomas
- Helen Thomas
Dear Friends:
Another publicly visible anti-Semite has been revealed, yet again.
OK, I admit…we have all, at one time or another said something we’ve ended up regretting. And yes, most of us have used the time tested “I had too much to drink”.
Enter, Helen Thomas. Was it one martini too many…or just a moment of complete honesty?
Ms. Thomas – 89, liberal icon – is a “journalist” of Lebanese descent who held a coveted front row seat in the White House press room under several presidents. (Aren’t journalist “supposedly” subject to professional standards?)
Ms. Thomas’ statement that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and go back to “Poland and Germany” is clear evidence that she cannot fulfill the impartial obligations of her once noble profession.
Her bigoted remarks show an ignorance of history.
The State of Israel sits where the Jewish kingdoms of Judea and Israel reigned thousands of years ago. In an area known in modern times as the British Mandate of Palestine, Jews have lived for thousands of years.
“I deeply regret my comments,” she said in the statement, claiming they “do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance.”
Really?
Au revoi, Ms. Thomas. Au revoi.
Mrs. Figgins
www.askmrsfiggins.com
Advice & opinion on everyday issues by Mrs Figgins with common sense & good old-fashioned-values!
Talk – Talk – Talk
- Give these a try!
Dear Mrs. Figgins:
My wife’s sister Lily has been living with us for going on three years.
I’m fond of the old gal but her constant chatter is enough to send me over the edge. How do I shut her up during the playoff’s?
Jim, Little Rock
Dear Jim.
If you’re real smart – you won’t even try.
By now you’ve learned one undeniable truth: Women love to talk.
As far as women are concerned “silence” is a space to fill, even if they’ve nothing to say. Consider it “decorating”.
By the way, I have a pair of those TV Ears and they work great. So what the heck, give them a try Jim!
Mrs. Figgins
www.askmrsfiggins.com
Advice & opinion on everyday issues by Mrs Figgins with common sense & good old-fashioned-values!
June 7, 2010
Brain in Trousers!
-
Consequences
Consequences
Dear Mrs. Figgins:
I’m 17 ½ years old and if I ever think of getting married I want someone to just shoot me.
My cousin who was set to marry found out that her fiancé has been having an affair with her chief bridesmaid.
We thought he was a good bloke but he turned out to be a STUPID one!
Beatrice, Cotswolds
Dear Beatrice:
How generous of you to put it so mildly.
But think about it: you’d be stupid too if you had your brain in your trousers.
Don’t give up on the idea of love Beatrice. It is the many splendored thing that makes the world stand still.
You’ll see.
Mrs. Figgins
www.askmrsfiggins.com
Advice & opinion on everyday issues by Mrs Figgins with common sense & good old-fashioned-values!
Husband in dog house!
-
In The Dog House!
In The Dog House!
Dear Mrs. Figgins:
My wife is pregnant with our first child. I love her but she is driving me nuts feeling guilty about every little thing “we” eat or drink – even how she sleeps!
If I don’t chime to make her feel better about her choices, she gets upset because I’m not being sensitive enough.
I’m beginning to decorate the dog house!
How do men get thru this?
George, White Plains
Dear George:
Show me a woman who doesn’t feel guilty and I’ll show you a man.
A mother wants the best for her baby and she is always second guessing her choices. The changes she faces seem endless and overwhelming.
You get “thru this” by by doing everything possible to be sympathetic and empathetic. When you think you’ve done enough - keep going.
Think of it this way: Would you like to change places with your wife?
So shape up George, or back on time-out!
Mrs. Figgins
www.askmrsfiggins.com
Advice & opinion on everyday issues by Mrs Figgins with common sense & good old-fashioned-values!
June 3, 2010
She’s from Venus – and he doesn’t understand
- Venus vs Mars
Dear Mrs. Figgins:
My wife has more clothes in her closet than I’ve had all my life. It’s not about the money really. It’s about “WHY”? Why is this necessary?
Does she need therapy or do I?
Benjamin, MI
Dear Benjamin:
Women never have anything to wear or so they think. They also think men just don’t understand. I admit, I agree.
My best advice is: If it’s not about the money, drop it. It’s just one of the many differences between Venus and Mars.
Mrs. Figgins
www.askmrsfiggins.com
Advice & opinion on everyday issues by Mrs Figgins with common sense & good old-fashioned-values!
June 2, 2010
Supreme Court Rules On “Silence”
Is Silence Golden?
Dear Friends:
A divided Supreme Court has ruled that a suspect must clearly declare that he wants to remain silent and cannot simply be silent, once rights have been read and questioning begun.
By a 5 -4 vote this ruling scales back the ”Miranda” right and enhances prosecutors’ ability to assert that a suspect waived his right to remain silent even when he did not say so
Below is the Associated Press article on the case: Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470.
Supreme Court: Suspects Still Have the Right to Remain Silent, But Must Say So
Associated Press June 01, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants’ rights “upside down.”
A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court’s conservatives, said that wasn’t enough.
“Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police,” Kennedy said. “Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning.’ Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court’s liberals, saying the majority’s decision “turns Miranda upside down.”
“Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counterintuitively, requires them to speak,” she said. “At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded.”
Van Chester Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and interrogated by police for three hours. At the beginning, Thompkins was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.
The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering “yes,” “no,” “I don’t know,” nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for “shooting that boy down,” Thompkins said, “Yes.”
He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.
The Cincinnati-based appeals court agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision.
www.askmrsfiggins.com
Advice & opinion on everyday issues by Mrs Figgins with common sense & good old-fashioned-values!
Is Silence Golden?
The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering “yes,” “no,” “I don’t know,” nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for “shooting that boy down,” Thompkins said, “Yes.”
Seniors see Obamacare slight-of-hand
REPEAL!
Dear Friends:
Seniors have wisdom. They can spot a slight of hand from far away. They have a finely tuned inside voice. And that voice is saying “Obamacare doesn’t add up”. They aren’t buying what Washington is selling. THEY ARE 100% CORRECT.
Burdened by massive liability, Medicare is well on its way to insolvency and seniors know there will be:
-
New & Higher Taxes
-
Fewer Plan Choices
-
Less Access to Physicians
-
Rationed Care
-
More Medicare Payment Cuts
Seniors deserve more. Much more.
My sincere appreciation to the Heritage Foundation for allowing us the opportunity to share the following article with you.
Mrs. Figgins
Obamacare: Impact on Seniors
by Robert Moffit, Ph.D. – Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
20 May 2010
According to surveys, no group of Americans is more skeptical of Obamacare than senior citizens, and with good reason.
While bits and pieces of the massive law are designed to appeal to seniors—more taxpayer subsidies for the Medicare drug benefit, for example—much of the financing over the initial 10 years is siphoned off from an estimated $575 billion in projected savings to the Medicare program.
Unless Medicare savings are captured and plowed right back into the Medicare program, however, the solvency of the Medicare program will continue to weaken. The law does not provide for that. Medicare is already burdened by an unfunded liability of $38 trillion.
Medicare Advantage plans, which currently attract almost one in four seniors, will see enrollment cut roughly in half over the next 10 years. Senior citizens will thus be more dependent on traditional Medicare than they are today and will have fewer health care choices.
Initial Provisions
Under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, Congress deliberately created a gap in Medicare drug coverage (the so-called “donut hole”) in which seniors would be required to pay 100 percent of drug costs up to a specified amount. Obamacare provides a $250 rebate for seniors who fall into the “donut hole” and requires drug companies to provide a 50 percent discount on brand name prescriptions filled in the hole.
In 2011, Obamacare will also impose a new tax (a “fee”) on the sale of these brand name drugs in Medicare and other government health programs, ranging from $2.5 billion in 2011 to $4.1 billion in 2018. Meanwhile, the law will freeze payments to Medicare Advantage plans and restrict physicians from referring seniors in Medicare to specialty hospitals where physicians have an ownership interest. In 2013, the law eliminates the tax deductibility of the generous federal subsidy for employers who provide drug coverage for retirees. This could further undercut provision of employment-based prescription drug coverage for seniors.
Fewer Plan Choices
With the freezing of Medicare Advantage payments in 2011, Congress has set the stage for a progressive reduction in seniors’ access to, and choice of, the popular Medicare Advantage health plans.
In 2012, the law will begin reducing the federal benchmark payment for these plans. In 2014, these health plans must maintain a medical loss ratio of 85 percent, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services is to suspend and even terminate enrollment in plans that miss this target.
Enrollment in Medicare Advantage by 2017 is estimated to be cut roughly in half, from a projected 14.8 million (under current law) to 7.4 million.
Since there are serious gaps in Medicare coverage, including the absence of catastrophic protection, roughly nine out of 10 seniors on traditional Medicare already need to purchase supplemental insurance, such as Medigap. Without Medicare Advantage, millions more seniors will have to go through the cumbersome process of paying two separate premiums for two health plans.
Less Access to Physicians
In 2011, the new law provides a 10 percent Medicare bonus payment for primary care physicians and general surgeons in “shortage” areas. This is a tepid response to a growing problem.
With the retirement of 77 million baby boomers beginning in 2011, the Medicare program will have to absorb an unprecedented demand for medical services. For the next generation of senior citizens, finding a doctor will be more difficult and waiting times for doctor appointments are likely to be longer. The American Association of Medical Colleges projects a shortage of 124,000 doctors by 2025.
Obamacare has not ameliorated the growing problem of projected physician shortages and has surely made it worse. Under the new law, physicians will be even more dependent on flawed government payment systems for their reimbursement. Moreover, the congressionally designed Medicare physician payment update formula, the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR), initiates cuts that are so draconian that Congress goes through annual parliamentary gyrations to make sure its own handiwork does not go into effect.
The new law also dramatically expands Medicaid, a poorly performing welfare program with low physician reimbursement rates, and this expansion will account for roughly half of the 34 million newly insured Americans.
Furthermore, the law creates an Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will recommend measures to reduce Medicare spending. Formally, the board is forbidden to make recommendations that ration care, increase revenues, or change Medicare beneficiaries’ benefits, cost-sharing, eligibility, or subsidies. For the board, reimbursement for doctors and other medical professionals seems the only target left. But payment cuts can effectively ration care.
More Medicare Payment Cuts
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS):
Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than, and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers cost of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).
Indeed, creating a real problem for seniors, the CMS Actuary estimates that roughly 15 percent of Medicare Part A providers—the part of the Medicare program that pays hospital costs—would become unprofitable within 10 years.
Higher Taxes
Under the new law, seniors are going to pay higher taxes. The higher taxes on drugs (effective in 2011) and medical devices (effective in 2013) will affect seniors especially, as they are more heavily dependent on those very products. Older people, of course, have higher health costs than younger people. But the existing tax deduction for medical expenses will be raised from 7.5 to 10 percent of adjusted gross income in 2013. The reduced tax deductibility of medical expenses is waived for seniors only from 2013 to 2016. Likewise, older people have larger investments than younger people, and thus high income older persons will be more heavily impacted by the new 3.8 percent Medicare tax imposed on unearned or investment income (effective 2013).
New federal health insurance taxes—both the premium taxes and the excise taxes—will also impact older workers and retirees. The federal premium tax (effective 2014) will be applicable to Medicare Advantage plans and health plans offered to federal retirees in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). Likewise, starting in 2018, there is a new 40 percent federal excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans (defined as $10,220 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage). This will also apply to FEHBP plans, which enroll federal retirees.
A Better Policy
Forcing doctors and hospitals to comply with new rules and shaving reimbursement for treating senior citizens is not real reform. If Congress is going to reduce Medicare and impose a hard cap on Medicare payment to restrain per capita cost growth, at the very least it ought to channel those savings right back into the program to enhance Medicare’s solvency and lay the fiscal foundation for real reform. Seniors deserve better than what Obamacare gives them.
www.askmrsfiggins.com
Advice & opinion on everyday issues by Mrs Figgins with common sense & good old-fashioned-values!
Perfect Lemonade!
- Favorite Recipe!
Dear Mrs. Figgins:
My parents have lemon trees and the kids always ask them to make fresh lemonade when we visit.
I think everyone will enjoy it as much as we do.
Sharon, Austin
Dear Sharon:
Perfect timing for the perfect lemonade recipe!
Mrs. Figgins
Lemonade
Lemonade
