Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Smaller Size, Costs More, Consumer is Screwed Again!

Has anyone noticed what's happening to many of your favorite products in the grocery store? Right before your eyes, it seems, they're shrinking!

You think you're getting a great price on ice cream in those "half gallon" cartons? Think again! Many ice cream brands went from 2 quarts or one-half gallon to 1.75 quarts and many of us didn't really notice. But now, the size has dwindled to 1.5 quarts. Yes, you're losing 25% of the ice cream you used to get to feed your family, and the stores make it seem like it's a bargain when they put it on "sale"! It's not a bargain, friends, it's just the real price you should be paying for the product if you weren't getting screwed on content and sizing!

Same with orange juice, I purchased a carton of Tropicana Trop 50 less sugar juice and found the container to contain not 64 ounces as you would expect, but 59 ounces, although at first glance the container appears similar to a standard 64 ounce half-gallon juice Pure-Pak carton. Hmm, sleight of hand here in this fast switcheroo I guess. Even the Tropicana three-quart jug has shrunk to just 89 ounces, but executives say your juice is replaced by a snap cap and new jug style. I've found that hard to swallow, literally and figuratively. Besides, plastic is as hard to digest as is the marketing ploys of these companies.

Simply Orange, that used to come in a half-gallon size container is now also 59 ounces. No notice of the smaller size here either! Florida's Natural is still found in 64 ounce half-gallon cartons but the jugs are 89 ounces and not 96 ounces anymore. Yet Minute Maid, if purchased in the bottle is 59 ounces and in the carton is 64 ounces. Yet in most stores, the bottle costs more! Hmm, less product and more plastic for the landfill or recycle bin. Nice!

Cereal boxes contain less cereal, although some boxes remain large to give you the illusion of getting more cereal than is in the box. One ploy is for the manufacturer to say thgey're going "green" and decreasing their packaging material, but not telling you that your paid-for content also went out the window as well. Shrinkage works in mysterious ways, doesn't it? Some packages of other products have decreased in size, and the manufacturers say it's to keep from increasing the price to the consumer. Bulls**t! To put it bluntly. Seems they don't tell the supermarket that!

When fuel prices went up sky-high, the manufacturers and producers used that as an excuse to raise prices. Some of that was understandable, but now that fuel prices are about two dollars a gallon less than they were a year ago, the prices haven't dropped much, if at all. What's the excuse now? Are we paying for an all-new fleet of more fuel-efficient trucks and have to do it in one year? Isn't that part of the cost of doing business? Some bought fuel on open markets and got caught when prices went down and now we're paying for the tens of thousands of gallons of fuel they paid four-fifty to five dollars a gallon for and can't back out of deals.

I'd suggest consumers boycott companies who are ripping you off on their products. Do not purchase juices and ice cream, cereal and pizza and other products where the weight or volume had been decreased without a commensurate decrease in daily pricing! Not a single sale price, but daily overall pricing. And write the companies on their web site and ell them you won't but. Flood them with phone calls at their 800 numbers.

Don't you feel screwed enough by the government, without getting it from the manufacturers, retailers and corporate America too? Then do something about it!

Damn, America, you only have so many orifices!

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Obama and Economic Advisers...Throwing YOUR Money down the Drain!

Want to talk about throwing your money down the drain? Good Lord! Here's a good example of why we're in such deep debt and deep kimche in this country. A news story today from the Associated Press states:

"President Barack Obama, citing a new White House study suggesting that small businesses pay far more per employee for health insurance than big companies, said Saturday the disparity is "unsustainable — it's unacceptable."

"And it's going to change when I sign health insurance reform into law," the president said in his weekly Internet and radio address.

A new study by the White House Council of Economic Advisers said small businesses pay up to 18 percent more to provide health insurance for their employees. As a result, fewer of them do so and the number has been shrinking further in these hard economic times."

No Sh*t Sherlock. Anyone could have told you that. You didn't need a bunch of highly paid bureaucrats to do a White House study of small businesses, at god-knows how much money spent, to develop that information. It's simple economics and economy of scale!

When a large company negotiates with an insurance carrier, they do it on the basis of numbers. If they insure several hundred, or a thousand employees, they get a better rate than if they insure a few, It costs the insurance company less to process in bulk, they assign claims people based on customer numbers, and can project costs better when they have a solid base to do so. Plus, an insurance company can negotiate buy-down costs from health care providers from a position of strength when they have hundreds or thousands of employees in a plan, rather than a few. That's why an HMO can have the bill for a $19,000 surgery cut to $2,000 and the patient only have to pay several hundred dollars from their pocket. The negotiated pricing is gained from having a large client base, and you can't agglomerate all employees from every company into one plan. Thus each company and plan has different costs and pricing.

I'm not on the insurance company side here, but I do understand the cost/benefit relationship of bulk buying. If you go to a wholesaler and purchase in bulk you save money, thus the concept of Costco, Sam's Club, etc. Or the bulk packaging at some supermarkets. Buy more and save more. Go to the local store and get a small individual portion and you pay more. It's just simple economics that just about everyone understands.

Yet it takes an entire team of economic advisers on the government payroll to tell our supposedly intelligent president this? Nothing like spending millions when it isn't your money, eh?

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Obama and Stupidity...He has the Market Cornered

Obama continually does more to play the race card than anyone could have thought possible. Even those of his own race are sick of it. Worse, he runs his mouth even when, by his own admission, he doesn't know all the facts, and then goes on to make statements that apply racist overtones to an issue he shouldn't even be dealing with.

His latest asinine entry into a situation is that of the arrest of a black scholar, Henry Gates, Jr. in Massachusetts. Oh, wait, the scholar is a friend of Obama. That in itself makes everyone else stupid, doesn't it? The point that the professor was breaking into his house and someone called the police to report what they thought was a burglary, and the police duly responded. Mr. Gates at first refused to provide identification and accused the officer of racism. For what? Doing his job and protecting Gates' property? Just who the hell does Gates think he is...some celebrity that everyone is supposed to recognize at first glance and bow down to? No, just someone who is breaking into a house and needs to be identified. Since he refused and was allegedly abusive, he was arrested. The case has since been dropped. But Gates is demanding an apology from the sergeant who arrested him and it isn't forthcoming!

Then we have Obama spouting off that the police acted "stupidly". Then again, had there been an actual burglary or armed intrusion into his "friends" home, what would he have said then. The police were stupid because they were not there on time? Or should have done more?

Obama's statement at the end of his health care conference Wednesday night, without knowing the facts:

"I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry," Obama said. "Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three — what I think we know separate and apart from this incident — is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact."

Yet I haven't heard Obama fry the obviously idiotic ex Virginia Tech campus clinic chief, Dr. Robert Miller, who took Seung- Hui Cho's mental records home more than a year before the gunman killed 32 people on the college campus before committing suicide. According to reports, Cho was counselled because of his "disturbing behaviour" and nobody knows why Miller took those files, along with the files for other students home with him when he left the University.

Maybe he hasn't had time to look into a "racist" element there to spout off with. I'm sure he can find something. A president, no less, who divides the country in more ways, than I can remember anyone ever doing. Politically, racially and morally, all within his first six months. Ain't that just grand!

Thursday, July 9, 2009

TomTom Does it Again - Lousy Customer Service

TomTom wanted to update their database, so they sent out an e-mail promising a $10 coupon off future purchases at tomtom.com if you updated your information. True to their word, they did send an online coupon supposedly valued at $10. That's where the good part stops.

Nowhere in the coupon does it state that it cannot be used for map upgrades or map downloads. But, when you try to use it, there is no place or space to enter the code in your shopping cart. Neither can you enter it as a promotional code.

So, I contacted TomTom asking how to handle this as I wanted to upgrade my current map and but an annual map update, at a cost of about $48.00 less the $10 coupon.

TomTom e-mails me a reply NO. The coupon is only good towards hardware and accessories. I tell them the coupon doesn't say, that and TomTom simply sends me another e-mail telling me that they understand my frustration and will "pass my comments on for review." Basically, another too bad, too sad that we baited you to do something for us, and we're now screwing you once again and not performing as promised. Hmm, seems they have done this in the past too. Must be a pattern with them.

Here's what the coupon states:

If you are having trouble viewing this email, view it online.
To ensure you receive our future emails, please add US.news@tomtom.com to your
address book now.

TomTom(R) Products Maps Services Support
Car navigation

Thank you for updating your email preferences!

Use the coupon code provided below next time you're shopping at TomTom.com, and we'll take $10 off* your purchase during checkout.

3UYP__grAqDGaa6QAAAEiw6wZdxjO

Thanks again!



*Product purchase total must exceed $10. Coupon must be used on TomTom.com.


Does anyone see anything about "must use towards hardware or accessories"? And isn't maps and map upgrades a "purchase"?

As usual, TomTom makes and changes the rules during the game, gets what it wants and then lets you stand out in the cold if you actually go to use the coupon for something you can use. Factually, why would anyone buy a GPS from their website when most retailers and Internet vendors sell for much cheaper? The only reason to go to TomTom is their maps, and their service, which leaves me cold. Maybe their customer service is offshore and that's the problem?

Time to put the TomTom on Craig's List and get a Garmin where they actually believe in customer service.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan is Out of Control already!

Recent testimony shows that even the Federal Employee Health benefits Plan is out of control in spending, yet the government wants to control the health care of all Americans. The FHBP as it is commonly known, runs a 35 billion dollar annual price tag, and 30% of that cost is for prescription drugs, compared to 15% in the private sector. Yet the stakeholders of the government plan, the Office of Personnel Management, during a June 24, 2009 Congressional Hearing, didn't really have a good answer why. The respondent did try and blame much on the large number of retirees who are on the plan, and consequently could use more medications, but also alluded to poor controls on their part, the lack of inter-agency cooperation in purchasing and pricing drugs, etc.

Bottom line is that it takes Congressional hearings and watchdogs to police waste within the agencies that cover governmental employees' own health care. So, why would we ever expect more from a system that covers the general public? The government proves time and again they simply cannot do things right, yet wants you and I to believe that "this time it will be different." I think Bernie Madoff said the same thing if they just let him work one more Ponzi scheme, didn't he?

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Do You Want Obama Health Care?

From



Canadian Health Care: The End of Innovation?

John Stossel: Government Controlled Health Care Means Waiting Lines, Serious Drawbacks

By JOHN STOSSEL, ANDREW SULLIVAN and ANDREW KIRELL

This was scheduled for June 26, 2009 but was postponed to July due to the Michael Jackson death breaking news

President Obama said that the government is going to "fix what is broken about health care in America." It sounds like a great idea, but often what sounds good has unintended consequences.

When the government takes over, many critics say that you may not get the care and breakthroughs you need to save your life.


"The only way they can get costs down under a government-run system is to control the amount of money that is spent on health care," says Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute, who was born in Canada, and is wary about government taking the reins of health care in the U.S.

"We are going to have denied care, lack of access to the latest technology, and long waiting lists, just like people do in Canada and Great Britain," she warns.

In those countries, the government pays for all health care, and bureaucrats put limits on spending in order to control costs. They determine how much doctors can be reimbursed and put caps on the amount of money that can be spent on treatments.

The result of all this cost-cutting? People wait for care.

In England, shortages of dentists have caused hundreds of people to wait in line just for an appointment. The queues can be so long that some people have resorted to pulling out their own rotting teeth, using vodka and pliers as tools. One British hospital even tried to save money by not changing bed sheets. Instead of washing them, a British newspaper reported that the staff was encouraged to simply turn the sheets over. At any given time in Great Britain, there are over half a million people waiting to get into a hospital for treatments.

But Obama has said he doesn't want a government takeover of health care.

"When you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care," he told the American Medical Association last week, "know this -- they're not telling the truth."

Public vs. Private Plans: Cost, Care, Competition

Canada and Great Britain have what's called a "single-payer" health care system: the government pays for everyone's health care using tax revenue. It's true that Obama says he doesn't want a health care system exactly like that.

Instead, he says he wants to set up a public insurance program run by the government that will compete alongside private insurance plans. However, critics warn that a plan like this won't allow private insurers to compete on a level playing field. They say the government will keep costs down for their public plan by setting payment rates for doctors below the market level, the same way that Medicare does now.

"What will happen in the long run is that private insurers will not be able to compete with the government on price," Pipes predicts, "so they will leave the market."

Critics like Pipes say that when the size and power of a government plan grow large enough, public insurers will crowd private insurers out of the health care market and American health care will become a de facto government-run system, like Canada or Great Britain.

"People line up for care. Some of them die. That's what happens," Dr. David Gratzer says of Canada's health care system.

Gratzer, a Canadian doctor, thought Canada's government health care system was great -- until he started treating patients.

"The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy. Waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house," he explained.

"You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! You just have to wait six months," he continued. "You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air. You've just got to wait six months."

Many ER doctors in Canada agree that the system is broken. They say hospitals face a consistent shortage of bed space, and patients often have to wait.

While people in America also wait in emergency rooms, the wait is different in Canada. When patients go to the ER for treatment and are found to be sick enough to enter the hospital, they have to wait in the emergency room for an average of 19 hours before they can be given a hospital bed.

"We can't send these patients to other hospitals that have capacity because there is no other hospital in the area that has capacity," said Dr. Eric Letovsky, an ER doctor from Ontario. "Every other emergency department in the country is just as packed as we are."

Serious Drawbacks to Canadian Model

A national shortage of general practitioners in Canada means that 1.7 million Canadians don't have access to a regular doctor to go to for routine care.

The town of Norwood, Ontario, has only one family doctor available to serve the entire community. To ration the patient list, the town clerk holds a lottery once a month, drawing a few names out of a box that contains all of the people hoping to get on the doctor's patient list. She calls the lucky winners, but everyone else must continue to wait.

It's true that America's partly-private, profit-driven system is expensive and sometimes wasteful, but that pursuit of profit has allowed our health care system to offer rapid delivery, great doctors, and incredible lifesaving discoveries.

"This is the country of medical innovation. This is where people come when they need treatment," said Gratzer.

Thousands come from countries with government-run health care to take advantage of the advanced care in the United States. The famous Spanish tenor Jose Carreras didn't get treated for cancer in Spain -- he went to Seattle. King Hussein of Jordan came to America for treatment. So did Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

"Literally, we're surrounded by medical miracles. Death by cardiovascular disease has dropped by two-thirds in the last 50 years," said Gratzer. "You've got to pay a price for that type of advancement,"

The reality is that there are always trade-offs in life. Although government "universal coverage" promises great things like equal care and that no one need worry that an illness will bankrupt them, government control also means waiting in lines and sometimes going without care.

Innovations like birth control pills, cholesterol medication, robotic limbs, and many other things, would not have happened without the possibility of big profit, said Grace Marie Turner of the Galen Institute.

"I want companies to come up with cures for Parkinson's, cures for cancer, cures for Alzheimer's. Unless there is a reward for them to do that, we're not going to have those new medicines," she said.

Canada: Pets Fare Better Than Humans

Some of the best, most innovative treatments and most rapidly-delivered care happens through this pursuit of profit. Even in Canada, you'll find one area where they offer easy access to cutting edge technology.

CT scans and MRIs, hip and knee replacements: available 24 hours a day and without a wait.

"If I see a patient that's torn a cruciate ligament in that patient's knee, we can generally have the patient scheduled for within probably a week," said Canadian Dr. Terri Schiller.

But you have to bark or meow to get that kind of treatment. Schiller is a veterinarian and her practice makes a profit treating cats and dogs. Want a CT scan in Canada? Private veterinary clinics said they can get a dog in the next day. For people, the waiting list is a month.

"Many clients will come here with their pets and as they're leaving, it's, 'Next time, I get sick, I want to come here. I don't want to go to the regular hospitals,'" said Schiller.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Obama Says Let the Elderly and Very Sick Die...but Not His Family!

During his recent ABC health care forum, which nearly everyone agrees was so one-sided and biased toward Obama and the yellow journalistic style of ABC, Obama made it abundantly clear that he'd opt to let our terminally ill and senior citizens die when they could be expected to run up big charges on the health care system, but wouldn't promise that he'd forego those costs for his own family. Whatta guy that Prez is..whatta human being!

Here's part of his discussion:

In ABC News health care Forum, the President answered questions about health care reform.

President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people -- like the president himself -- wouldn't face.

The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News' special on health care reform, "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.

Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance.

The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother I always want them to get the very best care."

(Thus...although we would have to suffer, people like him won't because they have money or they're "better" or whatever. And this jerk is proposing a system that covers "all Americans". Isn't he one of US? Obviously, he and the elitist government bureaucrats are NOT ONE OF US!)

"There's a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, that every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier," he said. (Can you say double-talk here? If it's evidence, then it either is or is not, "may not" is just nonsense. And "whole bunch...do you like those specifics?)

Gibson interjected that often patients don't know what will work until they get every test they can.

"Often times we know what makes sense and what doesn't," the president responded, making a push for evidence-based medicine. (Obviously Obama doesn't know what makes sensse or not!)

Gibson asked the president if it doesn't make sense to decide what the limitations will be on options in any health care reform proposal before voting on it.

"That's what people are afraid of," Gibson said.

The president said he understood the American people "know they're living with the devil, but the devil they know instead of the devil they don't."

(We do know the devil. He lives in the White House and his name is Obama. He's not willing to subject him and his family to the same rules as everybody else, but willing to throw the rest of America under the bus to reach fulfilment of his agendas. Really a nice guy. Thanks to all who voted for this buffoon!)

What people are concerned with is Senior and Terminally Ill euthanasia where the "system" simply decides that it's time for you to go, based on an algorithm of cost versus your worth. Hell, the insurance companies already do that when you reach your maximum insurance value and they pay no more. If you can't afford to carry on treatment you either go home to die or end up in some indigent situation with inadequate care and die anyway. What is so different about the Obama thoughts on this?

The statement was bantered about at some point that in the final years of a persons life they incur 80% of all their medical bills. During this ABC Forum, Obama indicated that some 30% of all Medicare costs are spent in the final year of a person's life. He further indicated that perhaps, surgery might not be the answer where painkillers might be used more wisely where life might not be prolonged.

The point is, do we want bureaucrats making life and death decisions for us? Do we want government funded doctors making those choices, where their pay, and perhaps bonuses, come from how many patients they see off to the graveyard and off the medical system this year? That's not only scary, but a real possibility when the government gets oversight of your records and has it's large hand in your medical care. Doctors selected by the bureaucracy decide that you are too sick/frail/old/costly or whatever and should not have expensive treatment to maintain your life. Thus your treating physician prescribes palliative care and you slowly slip into the sunset. Sound like something out of a cheap television movie? Nope...just another political wrangling to spend your money while using smoke and mirrors showing you how well you're being taken care of.

If anyone wants to take you to the showers for any reason...be very afraid....