The Driver Alcohol Detection Systems for Safety, as the new approach is called, would use sensors that would measure blood alcohol content in one of two possible ways: either by analyzing a driver’s breath or through the skin, using sophisticated touch-based sensors placed strategically on steering wheels and door locks, for example.
Both methods eliminate the need for drivers to take any extra steps, and those who are sober would not be delayed in getting on the road, researchers said.
“Even if the technology is 99.9 percent reliable, that’s still tens of thousands of cars that won’t start every day,” said Longwell (beverage industry). Her group also questions whether a .08 limit would actually be high enough to stop all drunken drivers, since blood alcohol content can rise in people during a trip depending on factors such as how recently they drank and how much they ate.
“It’s going to eliminate the ability of people to have a glass of wine with dinner or a beer at a ballgame and then drive home, something that is perfectly safe and currently legal in all 50 states,” she said. (News-Sentinel)
And Big Brother wants to make this Standard Equipment on ALL vehicles in the future.
Doesn’t that just make you “feel” good? 🙂
Out of the 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare, there are five that fall most directly on seniors.
The first is the excise tax penalty for failure to comply with Obamacare’s individual mandate. Many seniors face a coverage gap between retirement and Medicare eligibility. Obamacare raises taxes on these younger seniors by punishing them if they don’t purchase “qualifying health insurance.” Set to go into effect in 2014, the excise tax penalty for mandate non-compliance will in 2016 rise to 2.5% of adjusted gross income for a senior couple (or $1,390 for those making less than $55,600).
Why does Obamacare raise taxes on seniors just as they are entering retirement? Many of these seniors will face this “stick” but find themselves with too much income to qualify for the “carrot” of tax credits to purchase Obamacare health insurance plans in an exchange. Many will be forced to keep working just to avoid paying this tax.
The second tax hike on seniors is the so-called “Cadillac Plan” excise tax. Starting in 2018, Obamacare imposes a whopping 40% excise tax on high-cost (“Cadillac plan”) health insurance plans. This is defined for seniors as a plan whose premiums exceed $29,450 for a family plan, or $11,500 for a single senior. Seniors often face higher costs in health insurance premiums due to chronic health conditions and other risk factors. This tax will fall almost exclusively on the seniors with the greatest health insurance needs.
Third is Obamacare’s dividends tax hike. Starting in 2013, the top tax rate on dividends is scheduled to rise from 15% today to 39.6%. In addition, Obamacare imposes a dividend “surtax” of 3.8% on families making more than $250,000 per year. That would create a top dividend tax rate of 43.4%, nearly triple today’s rate. This will fall very hard on seniors. According to the Tax Foundation’s analysis of IRS data, 70% of households over age 55 receive dividend income. Seventy-one percent of all dividends paid flow to these households. To raise taxes on dividends is to raise taxes on seniors.
Then there’s the medical device excise tax. Obamacare imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers in 2013. These companies will surely build the cost of this new tax into the price of what they sell. Who buys medical devices? Who buys pacemakers, wheelchairs and other costly medical devices? Seniors do.
Finally, Obamacare reduces allowable medical itemized deductions. Under current law, medical itemized deductions can be claimed on tax returns, but they must be reduced by 7.5% of adjusted gross income. Obamacare increases this “haircut” to 10% of AGI in 2013. This will mean that millions of Americans claiming medical itemized deductions will no longer be able to. The same IRS data as above tells us that 60% of all tax filers claiming this deduction are over age 55.
All of the tax increases in Obamacare will hurt seniors, but these five fall on them directly and hardest.
Alexandra Pelosi (daughter of Minority Leader) and Bill Maher came up with a video that seems to slam the welfare state.
At first I thought it was just a political reaction to being slammed by the Hypocrite misogynist label and up to the last line I copied I was with that.
Then read the last line I copied and you see that it was much, much more cynical and ideological than even I thought.
Pelosi’s video then offered the perspective of those in the welfare line.
“I’m here tryin’ to get some Obama bucks, that’s what I’m doin’, trying to get some Obama money,” said one man in a Yankees baseball cap.
“I am here to get some benefits, you know I mean, I’m here to get a check,” said another man as he blew smoke in the air. “Bitch, I wanna check.”
Everyone featured in the video promised to vote for President Barack Obama.
“Cause, he gives me stuff,” a woman answered when asked why she likes Obama.
“Cause he’s black,” said another man.
One man admitted to not working in a decade. Another explained he cannot work because of his background as a former convict, and another man added that he deserves benefits because of the country’s history of slavery.
The subjects of Pelosi’s film admitted that they don’t want to work — just a free check.
After screening the film, Pelosi explained that the outrage should not be against welfare recipients, but rather the defense budget, which she claims dwarfs the welfare budget. (DC)
There’s the ideological truth. It’s not the entitlement me-me-me mentality, but the Defense Department’s Fault!
“Red meat blamed for 1 in 10 early deaths,” blares the headline.
OH MY GOD!!!
WE ALL HAVE TO BE VEGANS NOW OR WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE TOMORROW!!!
Consider the conclusion that red meat increases the risk of dying by 10 to 20 percent. Anything less than a 100% increased risk — a relative risk of 2 — can be considered pretty weak, according to experts. According to the National Cancer Institute, “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.”
Cigarettes were at 1000%, FYI.
Studies like the red meat/mortality piece are also quickly filtered through propaganda machines, which further muddy the waters. In this case, animal-rights groups were quick to seize on the evidence as proof that their vegan lifestyle is worth emulating. (Too bad they left out the study’s findings — assuming we take them at face value — that eating white meat, fish, and low-fat dairy products reduce the risk of dying.)
As a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed points out, if the government can mandate that insurers cover birth control, can’t it require employers to provide free coffee, which has been linked to a number of health benefits, including protective effects against Alzheimer’s?
Imagine then that the government decides, after enough weak studies, that being a vegetarian or vegan is healthier than being a meat-eater. Can it force tofurkey and soy “chik’n” on every office cafeteria in the name of public health? Can it ban milk from school lunches?
Or imagine the opposite — if enough studies show that beef is found to improve health, will Hindu employers be forced to provide hamburgers?
If you look at enough studies, you can “prove” just about anything. The fact that health is now in the eye of a political beholder shouldn’t instill much confidence in anyone. As the latest hubbub over insurance coverage of “the pill” shows, it just takes a couple of bad apples in the government to spoil how individuals and groups want to live their lives. (DC)
But remember, We are from The Government and we know better than you, we are smarter than you, and we a just plain superior to you so you should do everything we say regardless.
I know I “feel” better! 🙂