Michael1942's Blog

Begs to wonder what else is bogus about funders of this institution since they spent millions to restrict their company insurance from allowing certain female health issues to be covered. MA 

KEN MILLER,Associated Press Sat, Oct 5 9:14 AM CDT

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The Museum of the Bible in Washington quietly replaced an artifact purported to be one of a handful of miniature Bibles that a NASA astronaut carried to the moon in 1971 after an expert questioned its authenticity.
The move follows an announcement last year that at least five of 16 Dead Sea Scroll fragments that had been on display at the museum were found to be apparent fakes.
The museum replaced the original microfilm Bible with one that was donated by an Oklahoma woman who wrote a book about the Apollo Prayer League, which arranged for Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell to carry tiny Bibles to the moon.
“We know for sure that one on display right now went to the moon, but we could not verify for sure that the one we had originally on display had gone to the moon,” museum spokeswoman Heather Cirmo said. “We couldn’t disprove it, it just wasn’t certain.”
The $500 million museum was largely funded by the Green family, evangelical Christian billionaires who run the Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby chain of craft stores. The purported “lunar” Bible is just the latest item purchased by the family to come under scrutiny.
Steve Green, museum founder and president of Hobby Lobby, also purchased thousands of Iraqi archaeological artifacts for a reported $1.6 million, but was forced in 2018 to return them to the Iraqi government and Hobby Lobby paid a $3 million fine after authorities said they were stolen from the war-torn country and smuggled into the U.S. Museum officials have said none of those items were ever part of its collection.
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls that were called into question, the 11 remaining fragments are being tested, with results expected by the end of the year, Cirmo said. Two of the fragments remain on display with signs noting that they are being tested.
The museum did not announce that it was replacing the lunar Bible — a decision Cirmo defended.
“It’s pretty ridiculous to think that any museum, that every time you switch something out you’re going to announce it on plaques,” Cirmo said. “Collectors make mistakes all the time. … This is not something that is unique to Steve Green.”
The item that was previously displayed is now in storage, Cirmo said.
Tulsa author Carol Mersch, who had raised concerns about its authenticity, donated the replacement Bible.
“(Green) is thankful, as is the museum, that someone came forward and donated one that actually went to the moon … and that one didn’t cost anything,” Cirmo said.
Mersch was given 10 lunar Bibles by then-NASA chaplain the Rev. John Stout, a co-founder of the Apollo Prayer League.
Green, chairman of the museum’s board, bought the original Bible for about $56,000. It had also been displayed at the Vatican.
Mersch questioned its authenticity because it had a serial number that was only three digits; she said Stout engraved the authentic lunar Bibles with five-digit numbers. Mersch said the Bible she provided was authenticated by both Stout and Mitchell.
“I thought (donation) the best thing I could do to honor Rev. Stout. He had asked me to donate them to museums,” Mersch said.
Green bought the item that was originally on display from Georgia-based Peachstate Historical Consulting, which acquired the Bibles from Stout’s brother, James Stout. The Stout brothers are both dead, as is Mitchell. Peachstate owner David Frohman did not respond to requests for comment.
In an interview with The Associated Press a month before the museum’s 2017 opening, Green acknowledged the museum had made some mistakes early on.
“There’s a lot of complexities in areas that I’m still a novice at,” he said. “But we are engaging the best experts we can to advise and help us in that process.”

Please Donate

If you are enamored with TOTUS then the current impeachment activities are upsetting. If you are the dyed in the wool American you think you are then impeachment is still upsetting but necessary to ensure we have an honest (?) government as provided for under the Constitution. If you are anti TOTUS then these issues delight you and make you eager to see it go forth. We should remember that the bigger issue is that our neer do well Congress is doing little to none of the work they are supposed to be doing and have been negligent in their duties for at least the past ten years. In the grand scheme of things (or politics) any or all Congressional members of the GOP  who are campaigning are downplaying the Presidential misdeeds and ignoring the glaring facts that this White House resident is totally inept in his job and cannot tell the truth if it’s written down for him. It is the duty of Congress to act as a part of the check and balance government system, not as an adjunct to the misdeeds of the current occupant of the Oval Office and his minions. It is our duty as voters to elect representatives who work for us (voters), not themselves. Election to public office (supposedly) elevates a person to place that would enable them to do the best for ALL voters. When I read and hear the statements issued by our elected officials on a daily basis I am reminded of the Movie quote “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate”. This trend will continue until voters remove them.

Please Donate

Is this a blip or is there some sort of sanity here? MA.

Conrad Duncan, The Independent 2 hours 41 minutes ago

Fox News host Tucker Carlson has criticised Donald Trump for encouraging Ukraine to investigate his 2020 rival Joe Biden in a rare break from his staunch support for the president.
Mr. Carlson, who is one of Fox News’ leading presenters, fell short of backing impeachment in an op-ed on Friday but admitted that Mr. Trump should not have raised the prospect of an investigation into Mr. Biden and his son Hunter.
“Donald Trump should not have been on the phone with a foreign head of state encouraging another country to investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden,” he said.
“Some Republicans are trying, but there’s no way to spin this as a good idea.”
Mr. Trump is accused of using the call with Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, as part of a wider campaign to force Ukraine into investigating the Bidens that may have included withholding a White House visit and financial aid to the country.
The Fox News host co-wrote the op-ed for The Daily Caller, the right-wing website he helped set up, with fellow co-founder Neil Patel.
Mr. Carlson added: “Our leaders’ official actions should not be about politics…
“Once those in control of our government use it to advance their political goals, we become just another of the world’s many corrupt countries.”

Please Donate

As usual, TOTUS is blaming someone else for his own mistakes, the only person who can make one look like an idiot is a person themselves, ergo TOTUS is the perp in this case and possibly many others. When you are not the smartest person in the room, you have to surround yourself with smart people or at least people with the knowledge to assist you. In this case, a Dictatorial, micromanager with dubious intelligence has continually shot himself in the foot and blames it on the weapon while his finger is on the trigger. MA.

Vincent Wood, The Independent 3 hours ago

Donald Trump reportedly told aides and cabinet ministers they were making him look like an “idiot” in an expletive-laden rant over his failure to clamp down on the nation’s southern border.
In a March Oval Office meeting in which he called for entry to the US from Mexico to be completely shut down, the president is said to have berated officials including secretary of state Mike Pompeo, aide Stephen Miller and former homeland security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.
“You are making me look like an idiot,” he said, according to an excerpt of a new book featured in The New York Times, which said the statement also included an expletive.
Border Wars: Inside Trump’s Assault on Immigration by Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael D Shear, also claims that Mr Trump considered a range of increasingly bizarre border policies – including fortifying the wall with a moat filled with snakes or alligators.
The week ended with the firing of Ms Nielsen after the 45th President said he wanted a cement wall on the Mexican border, despite contracts having already been secured for a steel barrier.
Asked by Mr Trump to erect such a barricade, Ms Nielsen replied: “Sir, I literally don’t think that’s even possible”.
This prompted the president to request her resignation by saying he wanted “to make a change”.
In another reported exchange between the pair, Ms Nielsen attempted to focus on subjects beyond the wall including requests for legal powers to take down drones.
But she was cut off half way through her request.
“Kirstjen, you didn’t hear me the first time, honey,” Mr. Trump said. “Shoot ’em down. Sweetheart, just shoot ’em out of the sky, OK?”

Please Donate

Headshot of  Stable Genius

Please Donate

A different look at a Health Care system at a reasonable cost to the consumer. MA.

By Sarah Kliff
July 1, 2012
We spend a decent amount of time talking about the Canadian health care system in our health care debate. Today being Canada Day (yes, really), it feels like a good time to brush up on how our northern neighbors actually deliver health care and how well it works. Without further ado, a completely painless guide to the Canadian health care system.
So, how exactly does the Canadian health care system work?
The Canadian health care system was built around the principle that all citizens will receive all “medically necessary and hospital physician services.” To that end, each of Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories finance and run a statewide health insurance program. There is no cost-sharing for the health care services guaranteed under federal law.
While Canadians are guaranteed access to hospital and physician services, it is up to each province to decide whether to cover “supplementary” benefits, like dental care and drug coverage. About two-thirds of Canadians take out private, supplemental insurance policies (or have an employer-sponsored plan) to cover these services.

While Canada is traditionally thought of as a publicly financed system, spending on these supplemental benefits means that 30 percent of health spending comes from private sources. One 2011 study found that nearly all Canadian spending on dental care came from non-government dollars, 60 percent covered by employer-sponsored plans and 35 percent paid out of pocket. Some Canadian legislators have made pushes to increase the scope of Canada’s public health plan, to cover more services, but have so far proved unsuccessful.
While Canada’s health care system is publicly financed, many providers are not government employees. Instead, doctors are usually reimbursed by the government at a negotiated fee-for-service rate. The average primary care doctor in Canada earns $125,000 (in the United States, that number stands at $186,000).
How much does it cost?

In 2009, Canada spent 11.4 percent of its Gross Domestic Product on health care, which puts it on the slightly higher end of OECD countries:

This probably has a lot to do with the lower unit cost of health care in Canada. An MRI that costs, on average, $1,200 in the United States comes in at $824 north of the border. It also has to do with lower administrative costs: A 2010 Health Affairs study found that doctors in Ontario, a Canadian province, spent $22,205 each year dealing with the single-payer agency, compared to the $82,975 American doctors spend dealing with private insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid.
How well does the Canadian health care system work?
The OECD tends to give the Canadian health care system high marks on outcomes in its regular look at international health care systems. “Canada’s survival rates for breast and colorectal cancer are among the highest in the OECD,” the international organization noted in its 2011 report. “Canada also does well in primary care, preventing costly hospital admissions from chronic conditions such as asthma and uncontrolled diabetes.”

Where Canada does not do well is on wait times, which tend to be longer than in other countries, especially to see specialists or obtain an elective surgery. A Commonwealth Fund survey in 2010 found that 59 percent of respondents reported waiting more than four weeks for an appointment with a specialist, more than double the number in the United States:

Canada has recently started taking steps to address this: In 2005, it had each province set evidence-based benchmarks for wait times for various procedures. “Provinces have made considerable progress with efforts to manage and reduce wait times, and many now meet wait-time benchmarks for at least 75 percent of patients,” the Commonwealth Fund found in 2010 report. “Generally, when available, trend data show waits for care are decreasing in the areas of joint replacement, sight restoration, cardiac surgery, and diagnostic imaging scans.”
Do Canadians like their health care system?

Canadians certainly view their health care system as crucial to national identity: 85 percent say that eliminating the public plan would “result in a fundamental change to the nature of Canada.”
That does not, however, mean there isn’t gripping about its shortcomings. A 2007 poll conducted by Queens University in Kingston, Ont. found that, while public opinion had ticked up slightly, “a large majority of Canadians still believe that the system is unsustainable and urgently in need of substantive change.” Most of the concerns had to do with long wait times and difficulty accessing care. The survey also found widespread support for increasing health care spending.
Put into an international perspective, however, Canada’s system looks to be relatively well liked. A 2011 Gallup Poll found that 57 percent of Canadians felt “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their access to health care services (in the United States, that number stood at just 25 percent).

Please Donate

Medicare for all-this is touted by one Presidential candidate but rebutted by the current majority party. There have been no real details on the medicare for all proposal but there have been outrageous numbers put out by those against it. The article below shows how the UK (and possibly Canada) deal with Healthcare along with other social welfare programs, pay attention to the highlighted areas. MA.

Richard Craig, Lived in the UK and elsewhere
Answered Mar 16 2018 · Author has 1.3k answers and 618.5k answer views

The NHS receives roughly 20% of total tax revenue. How much you pay is, naturally, dependent on what you earn.
Median incomes in the U.K. are around £22–25k. Someone earning £25k will pay approximately £5k of income tax and NI, meaning they pay about £1000pa for the NHS on the face of it and that would be on their tax statement.
The situation is more complicated because there are other indirect taxes, VAT, duty etc all of which go into the pot. Someone earning £25k usually ends up paying £9k in taxes total. By that measure, the NHS ends up costing about £1800pa or £150 a month.
More Answers Below
How much does the average UK person (in full time employment) spend each year in taxes on the NHS compared to an equivalent private health plan…
Why can’t the UK privatise the NHS? Why should people be forced to pay for other people on benefits?
How much money is given to UK hospitals from NHS for each birth delivered? Is there a different payment for different types of births?
Why does the UK government have so little money to pay for the NHS, education and other public services despite taxing citizens heavily?
Should the UK abolish the NHS?
Cameron MacDonald Gazzola Black, lives in The United Kingdom (1965-present)
Answered Mar 16, 2018 · Upvoted by Joe Jacobs, former Consultant Child Psychotherapist at National Health Service (1980-2015) · Author has 964 answers and 161.9k answer views

Officially, the NHS is paid for through National Insurance (in reality that hasn’t been the case for a long time, as governments simply add NI to the general taxation pot and use as much or, much more likely, as little of it as they want to use for the NHS). NI is currently about 13% of each worker’s wages up to a ceiling earnings level beyond which no more is paid. So if someone is earning the equivalent of US$30000, they pay about $330 a month of National Insurance. BUT, it’s more complicated than that, because NI doesn’t only pay for the NHS, it also pays for the entire benefits (welfare) budget, including old age pensions, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, housing benefit and much more, and all of that dwarfs the NHS budget. So my best guess would be that an average worker pays maybe $100 a month towards the NHS.
But there’s more. The NHS includes FAR more than average US healthcare plans. It includes dental health, eye health, the right to see the best doctor available for your condition, every penny of every hospital stay, all prescription costs in three of the four nations of the UK (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), my American wife’s orthopaedic shoes are free on the NHS, the list goes on and on. And all of that is freely available to everyone in the country, whether working or not. We pay much less for healthcare than Americans do, we’re all covered to a much higher level than all but the very richest Americans, and our governments pay far less for healthcare than the US government does.
There’s a reason we wouldn’t give it up without a hell of a fight.

Please Donate

The cons are always discovered and the perp(s) are always uncovered and jailed!

Please Donate

Henry Louis Mencken was a 20th century journalist who wrote for the Baltimore Sun newspaper. There was a quote attributed to him which was brought to my attention, the quote I was given was altered to read:

The correct quote is listed below in the second paragraph. The meaning is the same just the wording is different.

Mencken wrote as follows about the difficulties of good men reaching national office when such campaigns must necessarily be conducted remotely:
The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

“The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.^ Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920.”

We are now in that time when this prediction has become real.

Please Donate