<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>lholsenbeck's Diary</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.redstate.com/lholsenbeck/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.redstate.com/lholsenbeck</link>
	<description>Just another RedState: Where the VRWC Conspires Online weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:19:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Going to a townhall ? Give em heck with some of these facts.</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/lholsenbeck/2009/08/03/going-to-a-townhall-give-em-heck-with-some-of-these-facts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.redstate.com/lholsenbeck/2009/08/03/going-to-a-townhall-give-em-heck-with-some-of-these-facts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:19:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><a class="user" href="/users/lholsenbeck/">lholsenbeck</a> (<a href="/lholsenbeck/">Diary</a>)</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/lholsenbeck/?p=5</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">&#62;Now, I admitingly am taking most of these straight out of Investor’s Business Daily, but they are all quick points you can make to your representative that should floor him/her and enlighten others there. I do believe Obama is looking to make USA a socialist nation, but using the socialist label turns a lot off. Facts do not. Feel free to steal, alter or anything else to help make universal coverage DOA in September.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">“A recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that only 10% of U.S. health care spending goes toward prescription drugs. And as Columbia Professor Frank Lichtenberg has pointed out, for every dollar spent on newer pharmaceuticals, there is a savings of $7.17 in hospital costs. Hospital care and physician services account for more than 50%.”</span></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">&#62;So, these expensive drugs are actually savings of <span> </span>7 to 1 for hospital costs; and we are going to make it harder to produce innovative drugs and provide fewer and health costs are not going to go up ? </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><a href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333241799097315"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333241799097315</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">“In countries with nationalized care, medical outcomes are often catastrophically worse. Take breast cancer. According to the Heritage Foundation, breast cancer mortality in Germany is 52% higher than in the U.S.; the U.K.&#8217;s rate is 88% higher. For prostate cancer, mortality is 604% higher in the U.K. and 457% higher in Norway. Colorectal cancer? Forty percent higher in the U.K.”</span></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">&#62;Easy here. The US percentages will increase. Practically everyone knows someone affected by cancer and most likely a survivor. You can expect survivors will decrease.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><a href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332723342557746"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332723342557746</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman"> </span></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">“In 1968 total spending by the federal government was $178.1 billion dollars. Forty years later in 2007, total spending had risen to $2,728.9 billion dollars. So the budget of the U.S. increased in dollar terms 15.3 times in that 40-year span.</span></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">But all programs did not rise in unison. Some rose more, others less.</span></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">Outlays for Social Security rose from $23.3 billion in 1968 to $581.4 billion in 2007, an increase of 25 times. So Social Security drove the budget higher at a substantially faster rate than the budget rose as a whole.</span></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">ObamaCare plans to expand the government&#8217;s role in insuring the American people. The government is already the largest insurer in the health care business through Medicare. We are now told ObamaCare will save money. </span></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">What kind of impact did Medicare, the first large government health insurance plan have in budgetary terms? Medicare rose from $5.1 billion in 1968 to $436.0 billion in 2007 an astounding increase of 85.5 times over the 40-year period. Will Obama-Care be better? </span></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">Beware of government estimates about the future cost of ObamaCare. When Medicare was being considered in the mid-1960s, the government projected that the outlays for the program 25 years down the road would be $10 billion. Instead, in 1990, 25 years later, the outlays were $107 billion. Government estimates were off by a factor of more than 10! </span></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">Medicaid, the other large medical program currently in effect, outdid Medicare. Medicaid outlays in 1968 were $1.8 billion. In 2007 they had risen to $190.6 billion, an increase in dollar terms of 105.9 times.”</span></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">&#62;Ok, let’s apply this to you. Let’s put you at a starting of $30,000 with a 3% raise yearly. At 40 years with that scenario, you should be up to $97,861. Not bad, but that’s not even 4 times from where you started.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">If your salary went up at the same rate as Medicaid(105 times), it would be $3,150,000.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">If your salary went up at the same rate as Medicare(85 times), it would be $ 2,550,000.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">If your salary went up at the same rate as Social Security(25 times), it would be $750,000.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">This is the rate these costs are going up over your working lifetime, is your salary keeping up ? Mine isn’t.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><a href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333756899262999"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333756899262999</span></a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">&gt;Now, I admitingly am taking most of these straight out of Investor’s Business Daily, but they are all quick points you can make to your representative that should floor him/her and enlighten others there. I do believe Obama is looking to make USA a socialist nation, but using the socialist label turns a lot off. Facts do not. Feel free to steal, alter or anything else to help make universal coverage DOA in September.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">“A recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that only 10% of U.S. health care spending goes toward prescription drugs. And as Columbia Professor Frank Lichtenberg has pointed out, for every dollar spent on newer pharmaceuticals, there is a savings of $7.17 in hospital costs. Hospital care and physician services account for more than 50%.”</span></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">&gt;So, these expensive drugs are actually savings of <span> </span>7 to 1 for hospital costs; and we are going to make it harder to produce innovative drugs and provide fewer and health costs are not going to go up ? </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><a href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333241799097315"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333241799097315</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">“In countries with nationalized care, medical outcomes are often catastrophically worse. Take breast cancer. According to the Heritage Foundation, breast cancer mortality in Germany is 52% higher than in the U.S.; the U.K.&#8217;s rate is 88% higher. For prostate cancer, mortality is 604% higher in the U.K. and 457% higher in Norway. Colorectal cancer? Forty percent higher in the U.K.”</span></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">&gt;Easy here. The US percentages will increase. Practically everyone knows someone affected by cancer and most likely a survivor. You can expect survivors will decrease.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><a href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332723342557746"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332723342557746</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman"> </span></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">“In 1968 total spending by the federal government was $178.1 billion dollars. Forty years later in 2007, total spending had risen to $2,728.9 billion dollars. So the budget of the U.S. increased in dollar terms 15.3 times in that 40-year span.</span></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">But all programs did not rise in unison. Some rose more, others less.</span></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">Outlays for Social Security rose from $23.3 billion in 1968 to $581.4 billion in 2007, an increase of 25 times. So Social Security drove the budget higher at a substantially faster rate than the budget rose as a whole.</span></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">ObamaCare plans to expand the government&#8217;s role in insuring the American people. The government is already the largest insurer in the health care business through Medicare. We are now told ObamaCare will save money. </span></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">What kind of impact did Medicare, the first large government health insurance plan have in budgetary terms? Medicare rose from $5.1 billion in 1968 to $436.0 billion in 2007 an astounding increase of 85.5 times over the 40-year period. Will Obama-Care be better? </span></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">Beware of government estimates about the future cost of ObamaCare. When Medicare was being considered in the mid-1960s, the government projected that the outlays for the program 25 years down the road would be $10 billion. Instead, in 1990, 25 years later, the outlays were $107 billion. Government estimates were off by a factor of more than 10! </span></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">Medicaid, the other large medical program currently in effect, outdid Medicare. Medicaid outlays in 1968 were $1.8 billion. In 2007 they had risen to $190.6 billion, an increase in dollar terms of 105.9 times.”</span></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">&gt;Ok, let’s apply this to you. Let’s put you at a starting of $30,000 with a 3% raise yearly. At 40 years with that scenario, you should be up to $97,861. Not bad, but that’s not even 4 times from where you started.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">If your salary went up at the same rate as Medicaid(105 times), it would be $3,150,000.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">If your salary went up at the same rate as Medicare(85 times), it would be $ 2,550,000.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">If your salary went up at the same rate as Social Security(25 times), it would be $750,000.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">This is the rate these costs are going up over your working lifetime, is your salary keeping up ? Mine isn’t.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><a href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333756899262999"><span style="font-size: small;font-family: Times New Roman">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333756899262999</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.redstate.com/lholsenbeck/2009/08/03/going-to-a-townhall-give-em-heck-with-some-of-these-facts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bubba and his knife go to jail.</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/lholsenbeck/2009/06/16/bubba-and-his-knife-go-to-jail/</link>
		<comments>http://www.redstate.com/lholsenbeck/2009/06/16/bubba-and-his-knife-go-to-jail/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:44:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><a class="user" href="/users/lholsenbeck/">lholsenbeck</a> (<a href="/lholsenbeck/">Diary</a>)</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/lholsenbeck/?p=3</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Hey Bubba !</p>
<p>Yes, officer.</p>
<p>Is that a pocket knife on your belt ?</p>
<p>Well, it&#8217;s my hunting knife. It&#8217;s deer season you know.</p>
<p>Well Bubba. You&#8217;re not going hunting today because you&#8217;re going to Jail.</p>
<p>&#62;&#62;This administration just keeps going and going. Now, they have the ability to throw you in the pokey for a pocket knife.</p>
<p><a href="http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_06_14-2009_06_20.shtml#1245107316">http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_06_14-2009_06_20.shtml#1245107316</a></p>
<p>&#8220;On May 21, U.S. Customs &#38; Border Protection (CBP) proposed the revocation of four previous Ruling Letters; the effect would be a drastic expansion of the definition of non-importable knives. The organization KnifeRights warns that revocations would outlaw approximately 80 percent of the current market in folding knives.</p>
<p>The federal law does not apply to the mere possession or carrying of knives, but as KnifeRights explains, many state and local bans on possession or carrying are parasitic on the federal definition. Accordingly, if the proposed Customs change goes into effect, many millions of people who own or carry pocketknives would instantly be defined as criminals.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#62;&#62;Nice. First guns, then ammunition, now knives. I fully admit it&#8217;s one helluva longshot they start hauling people away for the wrong type of gun or knife; but they are putting the peices in place to do just that if they seem fit and it has been quite impressive what they have seem fit to do.</p>
<p>&#62;&#62;I&#8217;m just saying my grandfather wouldn&#8217;t believe that the country he grew up in is considering doing this if he were still here to see it.</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Bubba !</p>
<p>Yes, officer.</p>
<p>Is that a pocket knife on your belt ?</p>
<p>Well, it&#8217;s my hunting knife. It&#8217;s deer season you know.</p>
<p>Well Bubba. You&#8217;re not going hunting today because you&#8217;re going to Jail.</p>
<p>&gt;&gt;This administration just keeps going and going. Now, they have the ability to throw you in the pokey for a pocket knife.</p>
<p><a href="http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_06_14-2009_06_20.shtml#1245107316">http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_06_14-2009_06_20.shtml#1245107316</a></p>
<p>&#8220;On May 21, U.S. Customs &amp; Border Protection (CBP) proposed the revocation of four previous Ruling Letters; the effect would be a drastic expansion of the definition of non-importable knives. The organization KnifeRights warns that revocations would outlaw approximately 80 percent of the current market in folding knives.</p>
<p>The federal law does not apply to the mere possession or carrying of knives, but as KnifeRights explains, many state and local bans on possession or carrying are parasitic on the federal definition. Accordingly, if the proposed Customs change goes into effect, many millions of people who own or carry pocketknives would instantly be defined as criminals.&#8221;</p>
<p>&gt;&gt;Nice. First guns, then ammunition, now knives. I fully admit it&#8217;s one helluva longshot they start hauling people away for the wrong type of gun or knife; but they are putting the peices in place to do just that if they seem fit and it has been quite impressive what they have seem fit to do.</p>
<p>&gt;&gt;I&#8217;m just saying my grandfather wouldn&#8217;t believe that the country he grew up in is considering doing this if he were still here to see it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.redstate.com/lholsenbeck/2009/06/16/bubba-and-his-knife-go-to-jail/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

