Obama Admin Wants to Track Your Cell Phones

If you are like me, you use your cell phone a lot. In fact, many people have gone the route of only using a cell phone and not having a home phone any longer. Well from the president who campaigned against warrentless wiretapping comes this little nugget.

According to this article in CNET the Obama administration wants to start using your cellular providers records to track movements. The kicker is they want to do this without a warrant. According to the Obama administration,
….the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

It is true that candidate Obama campaigned against warrantless wiretaps. In fact, he made several statements chastising Bush for allowing this. Including this statement during a campaign stop in New Hampshire.
“For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and wiretaps without warrants,”

That was 2008, in 2009 Obama quietly changed course and agreed with the Bush policy. In fact, based upon this Wall Street Journal article, he has adopted a legal stance that is equal to if not more aggressive than Bush’s.

So, what is the big deal you may be asking yourself? Honestly, I was thinking the same thing but the longer I thought about it, the more uneasy I felt. I am not an extreme nut that thinks the government is spying on all citizens nor do I wear a tin foil hat to keep aliens from monitoring my thoughts. That said, this troubled me in that the government is promoting warrantless cell phone tracking not for the specific purpose of national security, but instead day to day criminal investigations. This could be problematic at best as there is no clear delineation as to where a line could be crossed. In regards to national security, the government does not need this as they should be covered under the NSA terrorist surveillance program.

Maybe it is because this could be such a slippery slope. What’s next, going to Internet providers and demanding website traffic tracking? And where is the outcry from the far left. Other than the ACLU, I have not hear anyone complaining about the imperialistic nature of the Obama administration as they did with Bush.

What do you think? Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill.

More Hypocrisy From Lacy Clay

Lacy and his hypocrisy are at it again. On October 27th, Lacy Clay sent out a press release that,

"has asked Attorney General Eric Holder and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct a swift inquiry into an alleged incident of racial discrimination against six Washington University students at a Chicago restaurant/nightclub last week."

Of course this is in relation to an incident that occurred in a Chicago nightclub where two black students were not allowed to enter due to an issue with their low hanging pants even after they offered to correct the issue and once a white student was allowed to enter after correcting the issue. I am not here to advocate the Chicago nightclub. What they did was wrong.

My question to Lacy Clay is this. Where were you when Kenneth Gladney was beaten by SIUE members at a rally. Where was your rage when a black entrepreneur was attacked for voicing his opinion and selling his wares. In the case of the Washington University students, you said

"In this day and age, it is imperative that action be taken to rebuke those in our midst who continue discriminatory practices and policies."

Does this not hold true for Kenneth Gladney? Does Mr. Gladney not receive the same protection as a black conservative entrepreneur?

And then there is Francine Katz who is claiming that AB is discriminatory towards women. Where is Lacy Clay's rage when Ms. Katz claims discrimination in the workplace. Why isn't he calling for the Justice Department to look into discriminatory practices at a publicly traded company? Is it because Francine Katz is a white woman? Is it because AB has supported via campaing contributions to Democrats like Russ Carnahan?

Lacy cannot claim that he is not getting involved or making statements in the case of Gladney or Katz due to it being an active lawsuit/investigation since a settlement was not made until October 28th and Lacy made his statement on Oct. 27th.

This is just Lacy Clay using race to make an issue larger than necessary. These young men had everything under control and Lacy had to step in and escalate it. I guess, Lacy will only help you if he thinks you are part of his voting block.

Obamacare Speech

So the president spoke for 48 minutes. Hmmm. Well, I have to say that I was not all that impressed. This man had a great opportunity to try and bring two sides together, instead, he dictated terms. Instead of listening to the American people, he has chosen to listen to the astroturf few who had to be professionally organized by unions and his own Organizing for America. This is a sad state of affairs.

I could break this speech down and write column inches on what was wrong with it, but honestly, I am in a fairly good mood and will break down some points, both good and bad.

Let's start with the good:

1. It appears that the blatant public option is gone. True, they are going to try and back door it in using the co-op plan, but for now it is gone as far as the president is concerned. This was mainly done for political points and to take the LBJ approach of "having a half a loaf instead of no loaf at all"
2. It appears that the administration is at least thinking about some sort of tort reform. OK, I know he never came out and said it, but it is my belief, and it could be my good me blurring me, that he knows this has to happen and he is gently entering into this. He knows he can get some big points on this one and look like he is crossing the isle if he enacts it. Believe me, Obama wants to be re-elected and what better way to tell a cynical public that he has then point to a win here down the line.
3. He stood up to the progressives and told them they cannot have everything. Believe it or not, this is big. As long as he continues to take this stance in private as well as public, good things could happen.

Now for the bad

1. The speech was way to damn long. This should have been cut by at least 15 minutes. As O'Reilly says, there was a lot of bloviating going on here. There was no need for the Ted Kennedy reference nor the Bush bashing. I saw that as nothing more than a way to temper any bad feelings that the progressives may feel for being told behave.
2. Great, you are going to have a co-op, but why not let it be private co-ops. A government run co-op can come to no good. Take a look at the mess that was created with Medicare D and implementing that. Even though private insurance is handing the plans, it is all part of Medicare D and was/is confusing as hell. This could be done much easier by allowing private groups meeting certain Federal guidelines to create regional or state co-ops that can do the same thing.
3. Why no cross state insurance competition. This does not make any sense. Axelrod goes on Fox and says that the Federal government cannot do this because it would contradict with state policies but the Federal government does this kind of stuff all of the time.
4. The numbers just do not add up. Obama states that they are going to cut fraud and waste in Medicare and that will save money. Why hasn't this been done already. Also, he is going to fine companies 8% of their payroll costs if they do not offer health insurance. It is obvious that Obama has never run a business as decent health insurance costs are way more than 8%. Most companies could make a profit by dropping healthcare benefits and pay the fine. Obama states that he is not going to pay for care for illegals, yet illegals make up part of the 47 million that do not have health insurance.
5. I know people in the healthcare industry who KNOW how healthcare plans work. I picked up the phone and called each of them separately after the speech and asked if they had watched. They had. I asked them if there is any way that an insurance company would drop someone for not stating they had gall stones if they did not know about it. The answer across the board was emphatically no. There had to be much more to this than what Obama states. I also asked them about the claim regarding acne keeping a woman from getting a mastectomy. They both said no, the only thing that may have caused a delay is if this woman was on some sort of medication that would have caused irreparable harm in conjunction with a chemo treatment that would be performed after the mastectomy. Other than that, no one could think of any reason this woman would have been delayed or refused. One of these professionals flat out said that this was BS and probably something made up by a astroturfer at a pro healthcare rally. I do not know if that is the truth, but it would not surprise me.
6. Why hasn't Obama listened to any of the GOP's proposed plans. He mentioned taking on McCain's proposal for a "hardship insurance" and that is great. There are a lot of others out there. He failed to mention anything they have offered or retort any of it. By doing so he is hurting himself among the informed independents that voted for him.
7. Obama lied during the speech. Not any overt lie, but the kind of lie where you omit the opposing facts or state only the facts that meet your needs. As a parent, these are the type of things we tell our kids not to do. Kudos go to rep Joe Wilson R-SC for calling him on it. publicly.

I could say more, but I really do not think I need to. I came up with this in about 15 minutes and God knows I could go on much longer if need be.

I would love to hear more from you.

Also, on a seperate note. No big surprise but no update from Lacy Clay. Since I am in a good mood, I am going to give him through the night. If nothing, I have a few new things to say.

Real Health Care Reform

I keep hearing Nancy Pelosi (NP) and Barack Obama (BO) talk about how the American people want health care reform and they have the poll numbers to back it up. Sure, everyone wants health care reform and if you have a phone poll that asks the simple question, "Do you want health care reform," most people will say yes. If you ask, "Do you want government run and regulated health care," a majority of the people would say emphatically no.

I worked in health care for several years and saw first hand some of the waste. Here are a couple of things, I believe can be done that would fix the problem.

1. Lawsuit tort reform - BO says he thinks people should have the right to sue negligent doctors. No one is going to disagree with him, but there has to be lawsuit reform. Lawyers are advertising left and right trying to get people to participate in lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. Turn on the TV some afternoon and you see several commercials in an hour asking, "Was your child born with cerebral palsy? If so, you may be able to receive compensation due to negligence on the part of your doctor." Make suing a doctor, hospital and any health care practitioner more difficult. Make the plaintiff's lawyers have to pony up the money if the lawsuit is found frivolous. Place caps on lawsuit rewards. Many times doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc. are following the recommendations that the various medical organizations have put in place for testing, procedures, etc. Placing caps on lawsuits for those healthcare providers that follow the recommendations will be a win win scenario for everyone. Doctors and hospitals will be able lower their costs because insurance fees will not be nearly as high. They will not have to play the Cover Your Ass game and perform multiple tests to get the same diagnosis. I know BO has recommended a government standard for tests, etc. and I really do not have a problem with it, although it is creating a bureaucracy where none is needed since all of the medical associations have these standards. If it will mean lawsuit caps, I am all for it, but you cannot set the standards unless you are going to set caps and penalize these lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits.


2. Do a better job of going after Medicaid and Medicare fraud. On average, of all claims filed for Medicaid, 10% are fraudulently. That 10% is a low number as some states like Florida and California have seen as much as 20 - 30% depending upon the estimates. Between 3 - 20 % of Medicare spending is fraudulent. That is billions of dollars wasted yearly. Go after these people. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money, well in this case spend a little money to save a lot. Think of it as a safe; you have to buy the safe to store the money in. There is a reason that the government does not go after these people. If they did, they would have to put them in jail. I am also sure we would hear cries from various groups that it targets minorities, the poor, whatever. I do not care. Get the FBI, Secret Service, the police, whomever it takes, to go after these people. If they are small time, take away their Medicaid and fine them. If they are big time, freeze their assets and put them in jail. It is as simple as it sounds.


3. Allow small businesses to group together as co-ops across state lines and have private insurance bid on their business. If you want make sure a lot of people have access to insurance, allow small businesses to get the group rates that are available. The more people that a group can bring to an insurance customer, the lower the price per person. This is simple and effective.


4. Reward companies the promote healthy living. Many companies do things to promote healthy living. Many companies that self insure, will give insurance premium discounts to those employees who are non smokers. Reward companies that offer those plans. If you start rewarding companies for offering these types of perks, they will see the rewards of lower insurance bills, have healthier more efficient employees and will be more likely to invest more money into additional health programs.

These are four plans that I have come up with on my own. NP, BO and Harry Reid are all supposed to be such smart people. Why is it that all of their ideas require the government to run everything. Apply government regulation to those that look to profitize on malpractice, go after those that are abusing the system and reward those that want to offer insurance.