No 810 “En mi opinión”  Diciembre 2, 2014

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR

Amenper:  Una Nueva Red de Intereses

Hoy en el Wall Street Journal reproducen un artículo que llaman

“Una Nueva Red de Intereses” del libro de Richard Wagner de 1996 ro “La Política Económica en una Democracia Liberal”, en que se refiere al sistema de salud.

Encuentro el artículo muy instructivo e iluminante, por eso se los paso en inglés y español.

El año 1996 era un tiempo en que ya se hablaba de la socialización de la medicina, hacía más de 20 años que ya se habían implementados los HMOs y el Medicare, y que el cuidado de salud en los Estados Unidos era más eficiente que nunca. 

El cuidado de salud cubría a los pobres dándole todos los servicios gratis, cubría a la clase media con los HMOs, y cubría a la clase media alta y ricos con diferentes planes de salud donde escoger. 

Pero el sistema empezaba a deteriorarse por el abuso de los usuarios de los servicios y el fraude de los proveedores. 

Pero la solución no era ni es la socialización- Por sus bajas pasiones, la humanidad es perversa y siempre se encontrarán personas que no pueden controlar su perversión. 

Pero es el deber de las personas a cargo de la administración del país castigar a los que con su fraude y abuso que destruyen el sistema.

 No debe el gobierno parte del problema creando la socialización que destruye el sistema.

Las HMO (organizaciones de mantenimiento de salud) fueron diseñados – por demócratas y republicanos en 1973, para ayudar a la clase media baja que no podía pagar los seguros existentes.

No para las personas mayores recipientes del Medicare, pero se cambiaron las reglas del juego.

Con el subsidio del gobierno los HMO podían brindar servicios a un precio más bajo que las compañías de seguros existentes y ayudar a la clase media baja y a las pequeñas empresas para ofrecer seguros de grupo a sus empleados.

La ley federal de HMO promueve y fomenta el desarrollo de las HMO. El presidente Richard Nixon firmó ley S.14 en ley el 29 de diciembre de 1973.

Proporcionó subvenciones y préstamos para proporcionar, iniciar o ampliar un Health Maintenance Organization (HMO); eliminar ciertas restricciones estatales para las HMO federalmente calificados; y requiere a los empleadores con 25 o más empleados para ofrecer federalmente certificación opciones de HMO

Los HMO más tarde han usado y abusado su existencia estirando la legalidad para su conveniencia. Hoy en día los HMO dirigen sus esfuerzos primordialmente a los beneficiarios de Medicare para transferir sus beneficios a los HMO no dirigiendo su gestión a la razón para la que habían sido creadas, la clase media baja y los pequeños empleadores.

El Medicare fue creado para las personas de edad que con su retiro no podían pagar el seguro, y el fondo para su mantenimiento se obtenía de impuestos a las nóminas de las empresas.

El Medicaid fue creado para las personas indigentes, viviendo bajo el índice de pobreza, y era pagado por los contribuyentes con impuestos de beneficios sociales.

Estas tres organizaciones conjuntamente con los seguros de salud regulares constituían el sistema de salud americana. 

Si el  Medicare se extendía a personas que no habían pagado impuestos por no vivir en el país.  Estos nuevos inmigrantes no debían de tener derecho a los beneficios debían pagar hasta que se convirtieran como contribuyentes a legítimos beneficiarios.

Si el Medicaid se infla desproporcionadamente porque persona ocultan sus ingresos o no buscan trabajo, si alguien abusa los servicios cometiendo fraude como usuario o proveedor el sistema debe de ser corregido, los violadores deben de ser castigado. 

Entonces vemos a estas organizaciones infladas con usuarios que no debían de existir y con el peculado de los administradores, fraude de los usuarios y de los proveedores.  Esto aumenta del hecho de que poco a poco habrá más usuarios que contribuyentes. Pero  esto no significa que el sistema no sirve.

Lo que no sirve son los que administran el sistema, lo que no sirve es la socialización que es lo que Wagner nos describe como el pago de unos para los excesos de otros no por fraude pero por designios oficiales del gobierno por motivos políticos.

O sea que si nos igualamos todos, entonces lo que sucede es que los que usan más servicios están siendo subvencionados por los que usan menos servicios.  Por eso los jóvenes que piensan son los que más se oponen al Obamacare. No han arreglado algo que estaba dañado, han dañado algo que no estaba roto.

Entonces como dice el título del artículo, el sistema de salud se convierte en una red de intereses, ya se llame HillaryCare u Obamacare. 

 

EXCLUSIVE–RAND PAUL: ‘BENGHAZI WAS THE DEFINITION OF AN INTELLIGENCE FAILURE’52

315

EXCLUSIVE–RAND PAUL: ‘BENGHAZI WAS THE DEFINITION OF AN INTELLIGENCE FAILURE’

EXCLUSIVE–RAND PAUL: ‘BENGHAZI WAS THE DEFINITION OF AN INTELLIGENCE FAILURE’

EXCLUSIVE  RAND PAUL : BENGHAZI WAS DEFINITION OF INTELIGENT FAILURE

by SEN. RAND PAUL 1

The House Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited Benghazi report Friday, claiming, “There was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.”

This one sentence tells us how seriously we should take this report.

Benghazi was the definition of an intelligence failure. It was, in fact, one of the worst intelligence failures in our history, a strategic blunder that resulted in the murder of a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans.

The ultimate blame lies with the Obama Administration and more directly with Hillary Clinton who oversaw this tragedy during her tenure as Secretary of State. No rational person has ever disputed that our government failed horribly in protecting the U.S. embassy and our diplomats. 

Americans just wanted to know who was responsible.

Now, a Congressional Committee chaired by Rep. Mike Rogers is telling us no one is responsible because there was no intelligence failure to begin with. 

It might be time to rename the House “Intelligence” Committee.

This administration has changed the talking points and ignored important questions about Benghazi throughout—when the administration knew what was happening, why did it happen, was it terrorism, who ignored Ambassador Christopher Stevens security requests, who told Susan Rice the consulate was secure, the list of questions goes on. These questions remain unanswered or insufficiently answered and are crucial to getting to the bottom of what really happened.

The Associated Press claims the report debunks, “A series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.”

None of these accusations contain even a modicum of truth? 

Three CIA security members have said their team was intentionally delayed by the administration in conducting a rescue effort. Are they being untruthful, or is this report perhaps not telling the full story? Multiple highly-respected news outlets reported on arms possibly being smuggled from Libya to Syria, before and after the attacks in Benghazi. Were all these stories fabricated? Or did they contain some useful or pertinent information related to this investigation? 

The Obama Administration has tried to paint members of Congress who ask these questions as somehow being extreme or crazy—and perhaps the House Intelligence Committee will now follow suit,

But remember, this is the same administration that called the investigation into the IRS scandal a product of a “conspiracy theory.”

When Clinton was asked during her Benghazi testimony almost two years ago who first floated the story about an anti-Islamic video supposedly being the catalyst for the attacks, she shot back, “What difference at this point does it make?”

It makes a huge difference, Mrs. Clinton. All of these questions make a difference—about your judgment and the basic competency of this administration. They make a difference to the families of the victims.

They make a difference to the American people who deserve to know the truth.

From the beginning of this controversy, Obama officials have used smoke and mirrors at every opportunity to evade blame. They have ducked and weaved to avoid anything that could possibly cast the administration in a bad light.

“C.Y.A.” is a term many Americans are familiar with that was invented by U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War. This new Benghazi “intelligence” report is little more than a C.Y.A. attempt designed to protect incompetent politicians and government agents at the expense of justice for the victims of September 11, 2012.

They will continue to cover up. I will continue to seek the truth until those at the top of this two-year chain of deception are finally held accountable. 

And yes Hillary, it still matters.

 

 

Una Nueva Red de Intereses

Del libro de  1996 “la política económica en una democracia Liberal.” de Richard Wagner, economista

WSJ, 30 de noviembre de 2014 5:32 PM ET

Supongamos que la atención médica se financia a través de los presupuestos del estado, o, equivalente, a través de un seguro privado que está limitado por el gobierno para cobrar precios comunes. Una vez que esto sucede, se crea una nueva red de intereses.

Personas que hacen relativamente bajo el uso de una forma de servicio y que son un grupo de interés natural en oposición a aquellos que podrían hacer un uso relativamente alta.

Lo que antes era una cuestión de una simple tolerancia de diferentes opciones de estilos de vida en condiciones donde el elegir cargar con los costos asociados con sus decisiones, se convierte en un tema de preocupación política.

En presencia de prestación colectiva o precios comunes, actividades que implican los costos por encima del promedio, actuarialmente hablando, se desplazarán parcialmente a aquellos cuyas actividades conllevan costos por debajo del promedio.

El estado se involucra necesariamente como un campo de batalla para la adjudicación de las controversias sobre estilos de vida personales.

Cuando la actividad económica estaba organizada según los principios de propiedad, contrato y responsabilidad, una sociedad puede tolerar pacíficamente una variedad de tales formas de vida porque quienes realizaron más costosos patrones de vida pagaría por ellos.

Pero una vez que el principio de mercado de la responsabilidad personal es abreviado por un principio de responsabilidad colectiva, grupos de interés se establecen automáticamente que traerá estilos personales en la agenda política.

 

Notable & Quotable: ‘A New Network of Interests’

From economist Richard Wagner’s 1996 “Economic Policy in a Liberal Democracy.”

Nov. 30, 2014 5:32 p.m. ET

Suppose medical care is financed through state budgets, or, equivalently, through private insurance that is constrained by government to charge common pricing. Once this happens, a new network of interests is created. People who make relatively low use of a service form a natural interest group in opposition to those who might make relatively high use. What was once a matter of a simple toleration of different choices of life-styles under conditions where the choosers bear the costs associated with their choices, becomes a matter of political concern. In the presence of collective provision or common pricing, activities that entail above-average costs, actuarially speaking, will be shifted partially on to those whose activities entail below-average costs. 

The state necessarily becomes involved as a battleground for the adjudication of disputes over personal life-styles. When economic activity was organized according to the principles of property, contract, and liability, a society could tolerate peaceably a variety of such life-styles because those who conducted more costly patterns of life would pay for them. But once the market principle of personal responsibility is abridged for some principle of collective responsibility, interest groups are automatically established that will bring personal life-styles on to the political agenda.

 

 

Boehner Hopes to Quash Rebellion in Ranks Over Amnesty

By Melanie Batley

As Congress reconvenes to consider a spending bill to keep the government running, House Speaker John Boehner and his fellow Republican leaders are working to quell the threat of a rebellion by furious conservative lawmakers who are inclined to force a showdown in response to the president’s executive action on immigration, The New York Times reported.
Since the party’s landmark victories in the midterm elections, the leadership has been emphasizing the importance of unity, but some conservatives believe that the only way to roll back the president’s immigration plans is to defund them, a move that would set in motion an almost certain government shutdown.

Boehner has tried to convince party members that Republicans would suffer most from the political fallout of such a course.

“Shutting down the entire government over something never did make sense to the American people, still doesn’t and won’t in the future,” Sen. Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, told the Times.

As Boehner approaches his third term, his legacy risks being defined by partisan infighting and Washington gridlock even as he reigns over a historic majority.

“He’s never wanted to just be speaker,” Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, a Republican, told the Times. “He’s wanted to be a historically significant speaker.”

The possible showdown over the spending agreement could undermine the establishment’s hope of setting a positive precedent to enact more legislation in cooperation with the White House in the coming months.

Special: The One Thing You Should Do for Your Prostate Every Morning

Nevertheless, Boehner’s office has been quick to point out that it was the president’s decision on immigration that has triggered the latest round of tensions.

“The president’s unilateral action on immigration will make every issue more difficult,” Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Boehner, told the Times.

“While the speaker is never going to give up on pushing for tax and entitlement reform because it is the right thing to do for our economy, he is realistic about what can be accomplished with this president.”

Despite the new fissures in the party, some say members are more committed than in the past to minimizing public disagreements.

“Over the last several months I have seen us become a lot more cohesive than we have been in the past, and it is a good time to have that happen,” Texas Rep. Bill Flores, told the Times, adding that he believes there are fewer differences between the leadership and rank-and-file conservatives.

Meanwhile, after Boehner’s failure to head off the government shutdown last year, Democrats say they have little faith that he will be able to command his conference in the months ahead.

“He always says he would like to do something more, but can’t deliver,” Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen told the Times.

Special: Seniors Scoop Up Unclaimed $20,500 Checks? (See If You Qualify)

“I hope I am wrong, but I don’t see that changing. He has more members, but the tea party still holds sway in his caucus.”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com 
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/amnesty-GOP-shutdown-House/2014/12/01/id/610233/#ixzz3KgIxKo4w 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed?
 Vote Here Now!

 

FBI Issues Terrifying Warning About ISIS That Will Have US Military Members On Edge

“The FBI recently received reporting indicating…”

  1. PETER BROWN

The FBI has delivered its strongest warning about ISIS to date, warning military members in the US about potential terrorist attacks against them.

A government bulletin Sunday night warned of attacks against the military where they live, stating fresh intelligence: “The FBI recently received reporting indicating individuals overseas are spotting and assessing like-minded individuals who are willing and capable of conducting attacks against current and former U.S.-based members of the United States military.”

How are military members to respond? They are to respond by scrubbing their social media accounts of references to their military service.

The federal bulletin said:

“The FBI and DHS recommend that current and former members of the military review their online social media accounts for any information that might serve to attract the attention of ISIL [ISIS] and its supporters.”

What has officials concerned is a repeat of attacks in Canada from last month, when two Canadian soldiers were killed in separate incidents by ISIS followers.

The FBI and DHS believe that such attacks may “embolden” and “motivate” ISIS supporters.

ISIS spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani said in late September: “Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict. Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling. Both of them are disbelievers. Both of them are considered to be waging war.”

Some in special operations and other parts of the US military have already scrubbed or deleted social media accounts beginning last August, when the bombing of ISIS began.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/fbis-strongest-warning-isis-date/#iezVeCuPhBr57mF0.99

 

‘YOU DON’T KNOW RACISM’: Black Cop Schools Idiot Ferguson Protestors

The students confronted the cop outside the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD. One skull full of mush, a White woman, who identified herself as an UCLA student, demanded of the officer: “As a person of color, are you ashamed to be part of such a corrupt system?…As a black man, have you ever experienced racism?”

Um, that would be a yes. He had grown up in Jackson, Mississippi during the Jim Crow era. One would think she would dismount her soapbox at that point, but she arrogantly dug in deeper.

She then tried to convince him that as a Black man, he was kept down by the White man, and as a result could never possibly succeed.

“Racism is a structure of power,” she insisted, using talking points no doubt gleaned from a liberal professor. “You are a black man. You are kept down by your race, even if you won’t accept it…You’re a black man. You’ll never reach the same pinnacle as a white man in this system, because you are black,” drawing applause from the brainwashed crowd.

Um, did she get the memo that we have a Black president? It’s hard to imagine a greater “pinnacle” than that. How about a billionaire named Oprah Winfrey. Ring a bell, ding-a-ling?

The officer then began an amazing Socratic line of questioning that completely exposed the true racism of these students — and the Left.

Dispatch fromenergynation

 

Dear Lazaro R. Gonzalez Mino,

 

Washington continues to push policies that impede energy development and hurt America’s future. Right now, the federal government is:

·         Delaying the Keystone XL Pipeline!

·         Throwing roadblocks in the way of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects!

·         Sustaining a terrible Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) policy!

Now, on top of all of this, the EPA has proposed new ozone regulations that could stop energy projects in their tracks, dramatically limit refining, and undermine industry investments in clean air technologies. Overall, the new regulations—known as NAAQS or National Ambient Air Quality Standards—would threaten millions of jobs, cost the American economy billions annually, and impede American energy development.

With a battle looming over these new ozone regulations, we encourage every member of Energy Nation to join us for an upcoming Tele Town Hall to learn more about this issue and what’s at stake…

The Costs of Stricter Ozone Standards
Energy Nation Tele Town Hall
Guest Presenter: Ted Steichen, API Senior Policy Advisor
December 2, 2014 at 8:00pm EST

If the new ozone regulations go into effect, it is certain that American jobs could be put at risk. Please join us to learn more and prepare to fight back!

As always, thank you for being part of Energy Nation and for helping to protect America’s energy future.

Sincerely,

The Energy Nation Team

Whacko Bishop Wants Koran Read at Coronation of Prince Charles

 by Gary DeMar 

We are learning that Lord Harries of Pentregarth, a retired Anglican Bishop of Oxford, said that at Prince Charles’ coronation would include a reading from the Koran. Such “a gesture at the traditionally Anglican service would be ‘creative’ and make Muslims feel ‘embraced’ by the nation.”

Embraced by the nation? The Muslims want to turn Great Britain into an Islamic State. Unfortunately, Prince Charles has already capitulated to a form of religious egalitarianism that makes embracing what the whacko bishop is proposing attractive to him:

“Prince Charles has previously stated that when he becomes king he wants to be seen as ‘Defender of Faith,’ rather than ‘Defender of the Faith’ – a title traditionally used by British monarchs, first bestowed on Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521.

“However, some Christian groups have criticised the idea. Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute told the Daily Mail: ‘Most people will be amazed at the idea that a Christian leader would consider the use of the Koran at a Christian service in a Christian abbey.’

“‘People are just so disappointed when senior Church of England figures lose confidence in the claims of the Christian faith.’”

Islamists will never stop until the whole world bows down before Allah. We will either do it willingly or by force. All resistance will be met with destruction. Islamists won’t defend any faith except the Muslim faith.

Reading from the Koran at an event like a coronation will be seen by Muslims as a sign of capitulation.

They will laugh at the naïve gesture claiming that it’s only the first step in conquering the once Great British Empire and turning into an Islamic Caliphate.

Islam never built any cultures. Anything that came out of Islam that’s good was borrowed. Rodney Stark writes that the Muslim “Golden Era” is a myth. “Some Muslim-occupied societies gave the appearance of sophistication only because of the culture sustained by their subject peoples — Jews and various brands of Christianity.”

Stark goes on to observe:

“Islam’s conception of the universe and its resulting opposition to reason, science, and philosophical inquiry have had a profound impact down to the present day. Muslim societies today are manifestly backward in comparison with those of the West. As Robert Reilly points out in The Closing of the Muslim Mind, ‘The Arab world stands near the bottom of every measure of human development; . . . scientific inquiry is nearly moribund in the Islamic world; . . . Spain translates more books in a single year than the entire Arab world has in the past thousand years; . . . some people in Saudi Arabia sill refuse to believe man has been to the moon; and . . . some Muslim media present natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina as God’s direct retribution.’” (Rodney Stark, How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2014), 43.)

How do these radical elements within Islam hope to advance their culture if their idea of advancement is through fear, intimidation, and death?

How does an Anglican bishop not know these things?

“Andrea Minichello Williams, who serves on the Church of England’s General Synod, and is head of pressure group Christian Concern, said: ‘At a time when we are looking at what British values mean, we cannot have values in a vacuum. British values stem from our Christian heritage. We cannot pretend all religions are the same, or have the same benefits and outcomes for the nation.’”

Amen to that.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/18821/whacko-bishop-wants-koran-read-coronation-prince-charles/#p0dqXOlPAERYDF1Y.99

 

 

HOLANDA ACABA DE EXPULSAR A LOS MUSULMANES

¿¿Francia y Canadá van a seguir este ejemplo??

 

Holanda, donde el 6 % de la población es musulmana, rechaza de ahora en más el multiculturalismo.

El gobierno holandes está harto de ser “pisoteado” por los musulmanes y abandona su modelo -después de mucho tiempo- de multiculturalismo que no ha hecho mas que alentar a los inmigrantes musulmanes a crearse una “sociedad paralela” y dañina para el país.

Un nuevo proyecto presentado al Parlamento holandés por el ministro del interior Piet Hein Donner el 16 de junio último dice:

 

«El Gobierno comparte la insatisfacción del pueblo holandés frente al modelo de sociedad multicultural en Holanda y expresa su intención de centrar sus prioridades- de ahora en más- hacia los valores fundamentales del pueblo holandés.

En el nuevo sistema de integración, los valores holandeses van a tener un rol fundamental y por ello el gobierno “no adhiere mas al modelo de sociedad multicultural” .

La nota sigue:
“Una integración más rigurosa es ahora perfectamente justificada. Por esto es que dice al Gobierno y a todo su pueblo, que esta orientación se ha vuelto absolutamente necesaria porque la sociedad holandesa, está a punto de disgregarse en términos de identidad y nadie se siente “como en su casa” en Holanda.

La nueva política de integración será mucho más exigente para con los inmigrantes.

Por ejemplo, los inmigrantes deberán obligatoriamente aprender el idioma holandés y el gobierno va a tomar serias medidas coercitivas ante los inmigrantes que ignoren los valores del país y desobedezcan las leyes holandesas”

El Gobierno Holandés va -también- a dejar de dar subsidios especiales a los musulmanes para favorecer la integración ( ya que de todas maneras ellos no lo hacen) y según Donner, “no corresponde al Gobierno ni a los fondos públicos, integrar a los inmigrantes”

El proyecto prevé también la creación de una legislación, prohibiendo los casamientos forzosos y también se pondrá una ley imponiendo severas medidas para estos inmigrantes musulmanes que disminuirán-voluntariamente- sus posibilidades de trabajar, simplemente por la manera que tienen de vestirse

Mas específicamente el Gobierno va a

prohibir el uso de vestimentas que cubran todo el rostro como el velo, la burka, la hijab, todo ésto a partir de enero de 2015.

Holanda se dio cuenta, quizá un poco Tarde, que su liberalismo multicultural podría convertir su país en un territorio de “tribus del desierto”, que destruirían la nación de origen y su propia identidad


El futuro de Australia, el Reino Unido, Canada, Belgica y Francia puede muy bien incluirse en este texto !!!

86% DE INTERNAUTAS VA A CIRCULAR ESTE TEXTO.

DEBERÍA HACERLO EL 100 %.

¿LO HARÁS TÚ?

 “FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”

En mi opinión”

No 810  Diciembre 2, 2014

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR

http://enmiopinionlazarorgonzalez.blogspot.com/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s