Tuesday, July 31, 2012

"Enron-Type Accounting"

with the same result.

Perspective: PLEASE WAKE UP.

This chart is supposed to illustrate how dismal the state of CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION is.

Please USE YOUR HEAD dear reader. What this shows is how dismal THE LAWS GOVERNING CHILD SUPPORT LEVELS ARE.

You can't get a chart like this unless people are being RAPED with OUTRAGEOUS amounts of child support.

Consider this. If you do not pay your "child" support (which is a misnomer - its is mommy support + child + her new BMW support), YOU GO TO JAIL.

Got that? YOUR FREEDOM IS SUSPENDED. YOU LOSE YOUR JOB; YOUR LIFE ENDS. So what do you think? People pay the support if they can anyway manage it! Yet the state claims MILLIONS AND MILLIONS in unpaid support?



Notice how the amount collected NEVER EVEN COMES CLOSE to the amount "due" (demanded at gun point), even when the economy was roaring in the tech boom late 90s!

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Too Many Like This

Not all divorced women or ex-girlfriends are like this. Some are reasonable people.

But this is some of the crap men have to put up with.

Notice with what punishment this man was met with. A man taking care of his children.

"When Marcia Clark filed in November of 1993 for divorce from Gordon Clark the reasons she gave was that he was an embarrassment to her and the children by being a Stay-At-Home Dad. He did work from home as an Architect, making about $40,000 a year as compared to her $160,000 a year.

Mrs. Clark felt he needed to go back to school to get an advanced degree in architecture so that he could be working for a large firm and be a better example of a father to "her" children.

When she filed for divorce, she also filed for custody of the children, limiting his access to them to a set schedule of contact. However, as she worked over 100 hours a week, she had to hire a live in Nanny to care for them.

When she filed for the increase in child support, he responded with his own filing for custody, at which point she went before the cameras covering the OJ Simpson trial to declare him a deadbeat dad who only wanted custody in order to avoid paying child support. Because of the national media running with that story, now every time a father files for custody, it is claimed he is only doing it to avoid paying child support."

Friday, July 27, 2012

It Was Just a Giveaway

There was no "program." It was just a naked giveaway of money YOU PAID IN TAXES. YOUR MONEY WAS GIVEN TO GAMBLERS WHO LOST IT ALL ON BAD BETS.

Nothing more.

Think about that.




Thursday, July 26, 2012

Fired for Using Free Speech

The Police Departments of Massachusetts will not fire a policeman for beating up innocent people whilst off-duty, but will fire one for excersizing his right to free speech.


His language may be classified as slander, but that is a PERSONAL INJURY AND IS ADDRESS BY THE CIVIL, NOT CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM.

If he DID SOMETHING. That is, TOOK ACTION that was ILLEGAL. That is, a violation of a CRIMINAL LAW, then he should lose his job and be prosecuted. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HE DID, NO MATTER HOW AWFUL A PERSON YOU THINK HE IS. There is a SOLID, THICK LINE between speech and actions. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SPELL IT OUT.

The police should not have hired this man to begin with, but they've been hiring people who are of low moral character and judgement for a while now.

I said it before and I'll say it again - the law does not matter in this country. The courts have been politicized. They are no longer an independent 3rd branch of power. They are useless.

Cop fired for slurring Carl Crawford

Updated: July 26, 2012, 3:28 PM ET
Associated Press

BOSTON -- A Massachusetts mayor on Thursday fired a police officer accused using a racial slur to taunt Boston Red Sox outfielder Carl Crawford, saying the officer had "brought discredit" on himself and the department.
"You have demonstrated through your racist comments that you cannot continue as a patrol officer," Leominster Mayor Dean Mazzarella wrote in his termination notice to officer John Perrault.
Mazzarella's decision comes a day after Police Chief Robert Healey recommended during a disciplinary hearing that the mayor fire Perrault, saying he'd used racial slurs at least twice before.
Perrault's attorney, Joseph Sandulli, said his client would either appeal through the civil service commission or file a grievance through the police union. Sandulli said Perrault didn't intend the word as a racist insult and the city overreacted.
"He was criticizing Crawford for being a bad player, not because he was a black man," Sandulli said.
A Red Sox spokeswoman said the team would have no comment on the decision.

Perrault had been on paid leave since he called Crawford a "Monday" before a July 5 minor league game in Manchester, N.H.

The word can be used as a derogatory term for blacks, and is often associated with Mondays being one of the most-hated days of the week, such as in the common phrase, "I hate Mondays."
Crawford was playing with a Red Sox minor league affiliate while rehabilitating a wrist injury and Perrault attended the game while off duty. After Perrault taunted Crawford, the outfielder notified stadium officials.

In the termination notice, Mazzarella cited previous alleged racist remarks by Perrault, including when he repeatedly used a racial slur in a bar while watching black NBA players. In another instance at Leominster's St. Patrick's Day celebration, Perrault saw a black man wearing a shirt displaying the name of the Irish beer Guinness, and commented to him, "I didn't know they serve Guinness in Africa."

Sandulli said two superior officers with Perrault at the parade clearly didn't consider the remark improper because they didn't report it, it even though they're obligated to report anything that violates department rules.

He said Perrault's alleged remarks at the bar were hearsay because the city relied on a written statement and never produced the witness for questioning. And Sandulli said that almost no one at the hearing, including Perrault, was previously aware that Monday can be used as a racist term.
"He feels strongly he didn't mean the comment in a racial way, and he's not a racist, and he wants to establish that," Sandulli said.

But Mazzarella didn't believe Perrault's explanations. "In arriving at this conclusion I did not check common sense at the door," he wrote, adding the word Monday was "certainly directed at Mr. Crawford's race," he said.

"Your actions are so egregious that severe discipline is warranted," he said. "There is no place for someone who exhibits such objectionable behavior in the Leominster Police Department."

Hey Ms. Femiznazi: WHY DON'T YOU ASK THE KIDS?!?!?!

Katie Roiphe: Those Opposed to Single-Parenthood ‘Bourgeois,’ ‘Alarmist,’ ‘Puritanical,’ ‘Smug’

July 19th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
It was just last week that Katie Roiphe penned a piece for Slate that extolled the wonders of forcing unmarried fathers to legally support the mothers of their children during pregnancy.  Her sole hesitation about yet another judicially-enforced transfer of wealth from men to women was that it, in some ill-defined way, might undermine women’s abortion rights.  Roiphe never noticed that abortion rights are a matter of constitutional law and simply not subject to change simply because “we” can now see a baby’s fingers and toes on an ultrasound.

 Far worse, Roiphe betrayed not the slightest interest in or awareness of the fact that mothers already control whether fathers can assert their parental rights.  Her enthusiasm for ever more men paying ever more money to ever more women apparently blinded her to the reality that doing so, without ensuring that men have some control over their parental rights is shockingly venal and utterly unjust.

But Roiphe has outdone herself with this screed (Slate, 7/17/12).  In it she attacks the excellent article in The New York Times that I wrote about here.  Or actually, I guess I should say she attacks what she apparently believes to be that article.  It’s hard to tell given the fact that Roiphe’s description of the article renders the actual piece unrecognizable.

As you may recall, the NYT piece was about the many dramatic detriments visited on the children of single mothers and those mothers themselves.  Those have been known for decades and need not be restated here.  But Roiphe clearly has no knowledge at all of the many problems manifested by the children of single mothers, not only as children, but far into adulthood.  That’s remarkable, because the Times piece she’s so desperate to discredit actually included a smattering of data on the matter together with quotations from highly regarded experts like Sarah McLanahan and Andrew Cherlin.  Did Roiphe read the article?

Well, she must have because she talks about the two mothers – one married, one not, – whom the author used to illustrate the social science on single-parent households.  So, she actually read the piece, but just chose to skip the parts that prove her thesis – that single mother households are fine and dandy – to be dead wrong.  Roiphe’s modus operandi is to simply ignore the science and focus on the individual mothers.  If she can show that the unmarried mom’s kids are really OK, then, according to her “logic” single motherhood itself must be as well.  The fact that there are exceptions to every rule seems to have eluded Roiphe’s grasp.  (As one of the commenters says, some drug addicts manage their addiction, but that shouldn’t recommend drug addiction to the populace generally.)

Most absurdly, Roiphe wants us to believe that the only real differences between the married and the unmarried mothers is that the unmarried mom’s kids don’t get to take part in as many extracurricular activities as the other’s.  To take such a small part of a rather lengthy article and pretend that it’s the meat of the piece is, intellectually speaking, beneath contempt.

Since Roiphe entirely ignores the science on single-mother families in favor of the individuals in the article, you’d think that she’d notice that, when the single mother had surgery for ovarian cancer, she was able to take only a week off work despite being told by her doctor to take six.  But no, the inconvenient truth that the woman was simply too poor (she’s supporting herself and three children on about $25,000 per year) to take any more time off didn’t fit Roiphe’s glorification of single motherhood, so she ignored it.

 Frankly that strikes me as pretty cold on her part.  Face it, doing things like going back to work in record time after major surgery is what single mothers do.  They do it because they have to.  They do it because there’s no one else to take up the slack in their absence.  That Roiphe so strongly recommends that lifestyle for women poorer than herself shocks me at her contempt for them.  Is that really how they want to live?

And that of course is the nub of the issue and the main point of the Times article – the economic devastation on women and children of the decision to raise children without a father.  The article certainly touched on the injury done to children by single motherhood.  Again, we’ve known that for decades whether Roiphe does or not.  But the main point was the sharp economic divide between single-mother households and everyone else.  The figures are alarming to anyone who cares about those mothers or their children, but Roiphe is happy to overlook all that, again I suspect, because they contradict her thesis.

More amazing still is her utter misrepresentation of the article itself.  She claims that the Times  ”disguised” the piece “as a straight news story.”  It did nothing of the kind.  It was obvious from the outset that it was a feature piece .  After all, it reported no “news” like “President Obama announced a new initiative yesterday” or “Mitt Romney campaigned in Ohio.”  So no one who’s ever read a newspaper would have mistaken the piece for news.

But what really puts a burr under Roiphe’s saddle is what she claims is its tone which she calls “puritanical,” “alarmist” and “moralizing.”  Again, it was nothing of the kind.  Indeed, it would have been better had it been more so, but in the event, the writer bent over backward to draw an even-handed, non-judgmental portrait of the single mother.

 As I said in my piece on the article, not once did it inquire into just how the woman had come to have three children whom she struggled to care for, by the age of 25.  Given the state of contraceptive technology and abortion rights, she could easily have avoided the situation in which she finds herself, but didn’t.

I suspect the writer didn’t bring the subject up for fear of seeming “judgmental.”  Me?  I think we need more scrutiny of just how the decision to have a child you can’t afford to raise gets made, but the article demurred.  For her part, Roiphe seems to never want that issue raised.
More shameful still is Roiphe’s pretense that the article’s questioning of single-parent childrearing is class-based.  To her, it’s just the bourgeois (yes, she used that word) tut-tutting of the well-heeled looking down their privileged noses at the less fortunate.
The innate self-congratulation of the Times piece, the smug sense that the average college-educated New York Times reader is enriching their children, insuring their mental health, while the sluttish, struggling, single mother is ruining theirs is— whatever the truth of the situation, which I humbly suggest is more complicated than that—extremely repellent.
(Notice the tossing aside of fifty years or so of social science with the casual “whatever the truth of the situation.”)  But, contrary to Roiphe, it is neither bourgeois nor condescending to point out the facts about single-motherhood and the children raised in those households.  The constant threat of poverty and the undeniable detriments faced by children of single mothers cannot be reduced to “[a]pparently there is a very fine line between giving your children enough swimming lessons and too many swimming lessons” as Roiphe would have us believe.  To pretend that it can be is to profoundly disserve women contemplating single motherhood and their future children.

And speaking of the bourgeois and well-educated, Roiphe seems not to notice that she’s both.  Nor does she notice that, in advising women that single motherhood is, yes, “just another lifestyle choice,” she’s leading people, many of whom have nothing like her financial or intellectual resources, into situations that are neither in their own nor their children’s best interests.  Katie Roiphe will never experience the everyday difficulties faced by the unmarried woman in the NYT article, but she has no compunction about recommending them to others.

Frankly, Roiphe’s piece is vitriolic verging on the unhinged, and that demands an explanation.  ”The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.”  And, like Gertrude’s apt observation about an actress, Roiphe’s overheated prose reveals her guilt.  The fact is well known that single mother child rearing tends to be bad for children and mothers alike.  It’s bad for society too.  Feminists like Roiphe have been peddling their snake oil for a long time and the proof that it’s poison for all can no longer be denied.  That’s why Roiphe doesn’t deny it – she can’t.  What she stoops to is an intellectually vacuous sniping at a good and true article.

In case we missed the obvious, Roiphe’s parting shot is her reference to a video the article links to.  Part of it shows the unmarried mother preparing dinner and her three kids whooping it up in the background.  It’s a scene every parent, married or not, would recognize, and according to Roiphe, means everything is fine for unmarried child rearing.  Not a word about decades of social science, but a single scene without domestic dysfunction, and Roiphe’s convinced.

Fortunately, no one else is.
Thanks to Paul for the heads-up.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

For Non-Custodial Moms

Raped by THE SYSTEM as bad as any man ever was: Fighting4Sadie.blogspot.com

JPMorgan Chase and Your State Government: RAPING FREE MEN




Feminism's Assault on The Family

What Have Feminists Done to America's Fathers? by Phyllis Schlafly


Update #1


The late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), a big advocate of VAWA, admitted that "up to 75 percent of all domestic assaults reported to law enforcement agencies were inflicted after the separation of the couple." Most allegations of domestic violence are made for the purpose of taking the custody of children away from their fathers.

The June issue of the Illinois Bar Journal explains how women use court-issued restraining orders (which Illinois calls Orders of Protection) as a...See More

Tuesday, July 17, 2012


If you are able to exercise critical thinking skills, the PDF document below should summarize how bad things are. READ IT, IN FULL.

Dedicated, by the author:

"Finally, to the men and women who have horror stories of their own to tell, please
share these stories with whoever will  listen.   Reform of  the  family court system
will  never  happen  until  these  hypocrites  and  racketeers  are exposed  publicly. 

Since the media is mysteriously unwilling to address this war against fathers, it is
up  to us  25 million  non-custodial  fathers  in  this  country  to  take  the  bull  by  the
horns and spread the word about what actually goes on behind closed doors  in
these secretive kangaroo courts. "


Cities and States Bankrupt

Despite running profitable scams such as "child support" (which is really support for a mom who most likely has a college education, and probably remarried a few years after you split), cities and states are bankrupt, mainly from overpaying employees, especially with absurd, guaranteed pensions that kick in too early and pay too much to a teacher, fireman, or cop who is no longer working and may be as young as 40 or 50. Private sector workers do not receive a pension (its too costly for companies) and must save for their own retirement, which does not begin until they are 67.

Cities and States will try everything they can think of, starting with jacking up fees and taxes, and even child support, again. When you consider that all divorced men are considered "DEADBEAT DADS," and are held in contempt BY THE PUBLIC simply for being a divorced father, or worse - an out-of-wedlock father, then you know these men will be the first to be murdered.

I can hope they jack child support rates up to something approaching 100% of father's income, forcing the men to flee to Canada or else blow their brains out. 

Perhaps when ALL the dads from broken homes are dead or gone, someone will sit up and notice. Because what's been done so far, is an insult and affront to men, decency, equality, justice, The Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution. But that hasn't caused things TO CHANGE. So what we are discovering is WHAT THE THRESHOLD IS for change to occur. So far, it seems that threshold is SOUL-CRUSHINGLY HIGH.

Monday, July 16, 2012

The Class of the Town

Many Police Officers are dedicated public servants: this man isn't one of them. 

He was caught driving the wrong way on Memorial Drive - that's a expressway that runs along the Charles River in Cambridge, MA. The speed limit is approx. 35 mph, but most cars do between 40 and 50 mph. Its designed to get traffic flowing AROUND the cramped city innards. 

Well this State policeman, off-duty, got drunk and started driving down this expressway THE WRONG WAY. Meaning he was about to hit another car IN A HEAD-ON COLLISION before he was stopped. 

Understand something: if you're driving 40 mph and you hit another car HEAD ON going 40 mph, this is the same as you hitting a wall, head on, at 80 mph. Do you think you're walking away from that one?

In other words, you are nearly GUARANTEED TO DIE. Head on collision victims go to the morgue, not the hospital. The ones that make to the hospital are vegetables. Ask the ER doctors.
So what was done to this off-duty cop? NOTHING. He was eventually fired from the State Police. Whoa, nelly. How vicious. Fired. He lost his job. And how about operating under the influence? OUI? That carries stiff penalties and jail time. Any charges filed? NOPE. Why? 
Because the cops who pulled him over DIDN'T EVEN PERFORM A BREATHALYZER TEST. 
Why do I harp about these incidents over and over again? Because they are COMMON PLACE. Because it is a sign that the police consider themselves ABOVE THE LAW, when the U.S. Constitution dictates NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Let me ask you something. The police are paid by the state to protect you. But from what I can tell, what they do best is protect the state, and protect each other, especially from the laws that govern you and me.

This is what happens when cops take their cues from politicians.

The Massachusetts State Police fired the trooper who was observed, in April, to be driving the wrong way on Memorial Drive in Cambridge.

Trooper Adam Paicos was off-duty when he was spotted driving in the wrong direction. The investigation into the incident is ongoing, according to a press release from the Mass. State Police.

In addition to the Memorial Drive incident, in May, Paicos was observed by a senior command officer engaging in further conduct unbecoming a state trooper. Both incidents occurred while Paicos was off-duty and he was still under probationary employment status.

The termination comes as a result of information developed during a State Police Internal Affairs administrative investigation into Paicos’ actions on the two separate dates within the past three months.

State police also terminated Trooper David Lemar after an Internal Affairs investigation found numerous charges against him.

Charges include, unbecoming conduct; neglect of duty; unsatisfactory performance; use of department equipment for non-job related purposes; and lack of truthfulness.

State police began an internal investigation into Lemar’s actions in 2010 after state, federal, and local authorities investigated accusations of wrongdoing at spas in southeastern Massachusetts. Lemar has been suspended without pay since that time. Lemar is not presently charged criminally.

When asked for details surrounding these firings, a state police spokesperson said there would be no further comment on the press release.

Colonel Marian J. McGovern, superintendent of Department, issued the following statement:
“Being a Massachusetts state trooper carries a responsibility for the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior. When a department member fails to meet those standards, we investigate thoroughly and, if warranted, discipline accordingly. Yesterday’s terminations came as a result of our investigations determining that neither former trooper was fit to serve in the manner we demand and that the citizens of the Commonwealth deserve.”

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Who the BLEEP is Terry Fixel?!!?

And why THE FUCK would I care what she says? A bloodthirsty, jackoff divorce lawyer in Florida. That's who she is. For some reason her press release was picked up by the Boston Globe. Again, WHY!?!?!?  It essentially says She hates men and wants to get rich off any divorced man with children.

The funny part is she probably has no children of her own, yet can't stop talking about the responsibilities of parents. And how you cannot avoid YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES. Her tone is one of condescension.

Hey Terry, in a free country, who the fuck are you to tell me what my responsibilities are and what they are not!?!?!?

Her website says she is a "respected lawyer." and suggests is somehow an appropriate authority on the subject of parenting and parental responsibilities. Is that a joke? There are no respected lawyers. And most lawyers are HORRIBLE parents, mainly due to the long hours they work and the fact they must be an asshole to do their job, no sarcasm intended.

She then goes on to offer her opinion on "deadbeat dads."

Terry, I've paid over 100 grand in child support. My ex has not worked full-time or made over $25,000/year since we split up. She essentially refuses to support my son or contribute to him in any financial way. She lives off 3 different men and is essentially living as a partially retired layabout at the age of 34. She has a $60,000 college education. She hasn't worked full-time for 10 years.

Terry? Get fucked sideways running, madame.

Terry Fixel: Avoiding the Title of ''Deadbeat Dad''
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 11:10 AM EDT
A recent Reuters article offers five tips for fathers to remember when avoiding the title "Deadbeat Dad." Terry Fixel, a family and appellate law attorney, believes that these tips will help divorced fathers understand their responsibilities regarding the support of their children.

Hollywood, Florida (PRBuzz) June 29, 2012 -- Reuters has released a list of five tips to help divorced fathers avoid the title of "Deadbeat Dad." The article, written by Andrew Lu, provides information that highlights the responsibilities that fathers hold regarding the support of their children. Florida-based attorney Terry Fixel believes this list sheds light on some extremely important facts regarding the law and the duty of a parent.

In his article, Lu cites five common ways that parents try to get out of paying child support--and explains why they do not work. He starts with moving out of state. Doing so does not negate child support obligations, as the court orders pertaining to the payment of child support can be transferred from one state to another. Unemployment and bankruptcy are two other situations that will not cancel scheduled child support payments (although some judges may make arrangements for reduced payments in special circumstances).

In addition to these three situations, parents may try to use their relationship with their ex to get out of paying their child support. Lu notes that joint custody will not result in reduced child support--nor will a physical absence. Regardless of if parents see their children, they are financially responsible for them.

Terry Fixel, a lawyer who practices family and appellate law in the state of Florida, believes that these laws protect children.

"All parents have a duty to support their children," commented Terry Fixel. "You can divorce your spouse, but not your children. Regardless of your circumstances, you must comply with court orders for support until they are modified or terminated by the Court or your obligations are satisfied."

Of course, judges can make exceptions in extenuating situations and child support rulings can be overturned in light of new circumstances; however, this rarely occurs. The bottom line of Terry Fixel's message--and that of the Reuters article--is that parents are responsible for the financial security of their children after divorce. Although the title of Lu's article plays into the phrase "deadbeat dad," these rules apply to both mothers and fathers and have been developed and enforced in the best interest of children caught in the middle of divorce.

Terry Fixel hopes that her statement will help parents understand how important it is to uphold their financial obligations to their children.


Terry Fixel is a Florida-based attorney who practices appellate and family law. Since 1979, she has provided legal services to her community. Terry Fixel earned her degree at the University of Miami Law School and has since retained her status as a "Member in Good Standing" with the Florida Bar. Some of the cases that Terry Fixel takes on include divorce, domestic violence, child custody, child abduction, paternity litigation, and emancipation. She also handles appellate cases.

Can't Fix What is Totally Destroyed.

Love Letters: Always entertaining. I don't know quite what to do with this one. 

The guy sounds rather sincere for the most part, but the problem is he made a very big mistake just when he was trying to prove his worth. That aside, the thing to note here is that many men are in this man's shoes - good men who want to please and impress women with their accomplishments, but find themselves behind due to the economy and their lack of skills/education. Women who work for years on their education find years later their education pays off in the form of higher paying jobs (ironic when you consider many women are in graduate school half for the education and half for cruising available men - the same goes for college). There are men out there who are likewise educated and skilled with high-paying jobs, but there are fewer and fewer of them every year. I have a few female friends left and they whine uncontrollably about the lack of "good men." They mean handsome, smart, and holding a decent job.

On top of the men not picked up in college and graduate school, a flood of men are available, sadly, due to their last relationship breaking down. Its just something that's going to happen, not every relationship lasts forever.

But again, its not that simple.

First off, many of the men have had TOO many broken relationships and it is damaging them, emotionally. Why? Feminazis will tell you its because men are sex-maniacs that like to bounce around. Um, maybe at 16, yeah. But the men I'm talking about are 23-35. They've matured and have started, at the very least, to find the idea of yet another relationship daunting. Furthermore, if the men are bouncing around, then the women are bouncing around too as men can't bounce around with themselves or eachother!

Secondly, unlike in times past, many men find themselves to be accidental fathers. They didn't plan to have children, were not prepared for them, but slept with a woman who was and who most likely lied to, manipulated, or fooled the man into sticking around long enough to nail for child support. Unless you really believe women simply MUST have every child they conceive; you see once she gets pregnant, a woman has a choice; so if she has the child, you know she planned to have it and wanted it. Men have no such option.

So from the pack, you have men not scooped up in college or grad school, and the leftovers from bad relationships, who are either damaged, or broke from lack of a job and/or unwanted children that slammed them with massive child support payments, or all of the above.  Those men are in effect, GONE from the dating scene. They sit in 1 bedroom basement apartments, unable to provide for another family, battling depression. They are a silent, sizeable chunk of otherwise capable and deserving husbands and fathers for women. Removing them - as well as the men who hear of their horror stories - simply causes fewer men in the dating pool and makes the available men more selective and the available women more desperate.

Happy Hunting Ladies.

Regarding the story below, I love the columnists advice: You are evil, Mr. Man for not letting her accept you as a non-working, unable to provide, ego-less, soulless, no-role, little pussy boy that she can discard at any moment with no material affect to her lifestyle whatsoever. Because men are "supposed to" engage in relationships in which they have nothing to offer outside of romance and love - two things any married adult will tell you are NOT PRESENT AT ALL TIMES in their marriage and have even been absent for MONTHS OR YEARS because THAT IS THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE. Chris Rock, the comedian and actor, who is infinitely intrigued by the subjects of love and marriage, has famously (and truthfully) pointed out that a couple will probably fall in and out of love several times over the course of a marriage - again, AS THAT IS THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE. Ever here a married couple tell you their marriage is "more of an agreement or partnership?"

Its a vow to remain together in and out of love; and remaining together IS EASIER AND MORE DESIREABLE WHEN THE OTHER PERSON PROVIDES SOMETHING YOU DON'T HAVE. Men used to provide money. Women? Women can make children; they have sex appeal; hair, curves, skin. Men cannot simply provide sex appeal only, as women can. Men must have more to offer and I stated earlier, the fact is, love comes and goes.

I love how he's chastized for his "insecurities." When a man's insecurities sabotage a relationship, ITS ALL HIS FAULT, THAT BLOODLESS JERK! Why didn't he realize what was happening and take responsibility!

When a woman's insecurities sabotage a relationship? It was the man's fault for not reassuring her 50 times a day that she's a pretty woman that he'll never leave. Oh and start forking over 40% of your salary, you insensitive asshole; she needs it "for the kids."

Also notice that the woman writing in wants to repair the relationship while the "love doctor" tells her to ditch him and move on. 



How can we fix this?

Posted by Meredith Goldstein July 10, 2012 09:00 AM
It's time for another self-help book review project. If you want to participate, the info is here.
Also, as I mentioned yesterday, Love Letters is now on Pinterest. I'm just posting things that I think we'd like. Pinterest makes me a little dizzy, but I'm doing my best.

Q: Two years ago I met the woman of my dreams. She was beautiful, smart, and funny. We took things slow for a very long time because both of us had just come out of tough long-term relationships. I had been going through a really rough time professionally. I had been laid off twice in two years and was extremely frustrated. During this time, we saw each other a few times a week but never got very physical. After eight months of casual dating, she approached me about getting more serious and making our relationship official.

While I had strong feelings for her, I felt terribly inadequate. She was finishing up her master’s degree and was taking steps toward the life that she had been working so hard for. I was just this guy who couldn't hold a job and was barely making ends meet. My self-confidence was at an all-time low and the prospect of meeting her friends and family made me very self-conscious.

I told her that I needed a little while to get my act together. In reality, I just wanted to get to a point where I felt comfortable being around her family and close friends. After a month or so, we reconnected and rekindled our relationship and shortly thereafter I was able to find a job.
Of course, when I acquired this new job I had already accumulated quite a bit of debt and picked up a second full-time job working at a bar to cover expenses. Shortly after I was hired, I was arrested for DUI and my problems worsened.

We had a very big argument where she made some hurtful comments regarding the DUI (which she regretted). Over the next few months, as I dealt with the aftermath of the DUI, I withdrew from her as our relationship grew more tenuous and stressful. I didn’t feel like she was supporting me in my "mistake" and was chastising me for my terrible error in judgment. After months of fighting and threats of just breaking up, I ended things.

I immediately sought therapy and realized I had broken up with her because I never accepted her apology. I told her that I wanted to try our relationship again. After a few weeks she decided to let me back into her life. We tried to get back to that place where we were both head over heels with each other, but her fear of getting hurt kept getting in the way.

Recently she decided that if we were going to have a future she needed a few weeks to come to terms with the hurt that I had caused her in breaking up and the hurt that she had caused me by saying the things that she did. I'm at a loss and don't know what to do. She's the love of my life but I'm starting to wonder if I deserve her after breaking her heart so many times or if she deserves me after making cruel comments to me during a very vulnerable time in my life. It's been a few weeks and I'm having a hard time dealing with her loss from my life. Please help.
– heartbroken and hopeless in boston

A: If your girlfriend wrote me a letter, I'd tell her to walk away from you, H&H. I'd remind her that you pushed her away when you felt threatened -- long before the DUI -- and that you're just not comfortable enough with yourself to have a significant other. I'll tell you the same thing to you even though you're the one writing the letter. She should walk -- not because you don't deserve her, but because you've never really been capable of treating her like a real life partner.
Even before you behaved recklessly, you were an inconsistent and insecure. She wanted a relationship with you despite all of your flaws, but you backed away because of how you felt about yourself. You spent eight months warming up to her and you still weren't ready.
I believe that you love her. You just have some work to do on yourself before you can truly commit to someone else. You need to continue with the therapy. You need to be around real friends, the kind of people who can support you as you sort yourself out. You need to ask yourself some big questions about your second job.
I understand that you're sad about losing her, but the relationship wasn't working. And again, I truly believe that the root of the problem existed long before that DUI.
Readers? Can they work this out? Do they "deserve" each other? Can you make a judgment about her reaction to the DUI without knowing what she said? How can a couple get through something like this? What about his insecurities? Help.

– Meredith

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

The End of Men


Imagine if The Atlantic posted something called "The End of Women." They would be called bigots and pigs and psychopaths. People would demand a retraction, apologies, editors fired, defamation lawsuits filed, etc..  Imagine if in India or China or the Middle East, they published something like this. You know what the response would be? "What on Earth are you talking about? Who is going to make money for the children and sleep with the women?" To which the only real answer could be "Women will make money AND take care of the children and.... well no one will really sleep with them on a regular basis. They will bounce around from guy to guy."  The Asian and Middle Eastern cultures would then tell you that you were TOTALLY INSANE, that women do not like bouncing around and that earning money AND child rearing is WAY TOO MUCH and that you are a mean, twisted sociopath for even suggesting it!

The magazine proudly displays a graphic of women with their hands on their hips, self-satisfied, smirking, vainglorious.

Men's response should be this: good for you; now go fuck yourselves. We have porn and video games. We can finally play pool and bowl and spend thousands on big t.v.'s and sports cars and strippers. No more sperm from us. Screw yourselves.

Disrespect intended.


Because women would say no less to men if we were proclaiming "The End of Women," and deservedly so.

This is Our LIFE

Just pathetic and disgusting. My experiences are similar.

From the Angry Dad:

Morning in Judge Morse's court

I spent all yesterday morning in Judge Heather D. Morse's court. I thought that the 8:30 am motions had to finish by 10:00, but these motions dragged on and on. My case was not called until 1:30 pm, after lunch.

Judge Morse seems to let the cases with lawyers go first. The first case was a Mexican couple fighting over child support. Both parents had lawyers, and there was a Spanish interpreter as well. The dad said that he worked two restaurant jobs. When asked how long he had these jobs, he said he had one for 25 years and one for 12 years. At one point the mom blurted out "he's lying". The admonished her for being "not helpful", and said that she was sure that each can say bad things about the other. At another point, the mom's lawyer said, "I believe that we filed an income and expense statement." When the judge could not find the statement, the lawyer said, "When I say 'I believe', I mean that I don't know whether we filed it or not."

I am always amazed at how useless these lawyers are. They are supposed to file income and expense statements for a child support motion. If he does not even know whether a statement was filed, what could he possible know about the case? Neither lawyer appeared to know anything about the case. The judge collected the info by asking the parents directly. If a client claims that the other side is lying, then the lawyer should find out what the issue is and contest it. But I don't think that her lawyer even learned what was allegedly the lie. It was not clear that the lawyers and clients even speak the same language.

Considering that the dad's income was long-term wage income, I don't see that there was any legitimate reason to waste the court's time. The only thing that was slightly unusual was that some of the restaurant income was seasonal. But they could have just divided his annual income by twelve.

The next case had a mom with a baby. The judge made a point of saying that the baby was "adorable".

Another case was a child support case, with both sides having doubts about the other's reported income. The mom was a real estate agent, with a lot of home office expenses. The dad was working for his mom's business, and could have been underreporting income. The judge could not cope with any of this. I think that they should just use IRS figures, and avoid these hopeless arguments.

The dad did not show up for the next case. The mom had some complaint about getting him to pay for half the medical expenses. The judge suggested getting DCSS help for enforcement, and said that they could take away his drivers license.

A dad wanted his spousal and child support adjusted in the next case, because the mom had just a Social Security award. She is now getting $1032.70 per month for being permanently "totally disabled". The kid is 16 and also gets $516 disability checks. She had no obvious disability. About a half an hour was wasted while the judge tried to figure out how to enter the disability payments into the Dissomaster program. She ended up entering it as "other taxable income" which I don't think is correct. More time was wasted when she exited the program without saving her work. It was painful and tedious.

Then was another case with lawyers arguing about child support. One lawyer admitted that he does not understand how to use the Dissomaster program. It sounded pathetic, but the program really is unnecessarily confusing for a case like his. The parents had three kids. The oldest hates the mom, and lived 100% with the dad. The next one lives with the mom. They had joint custody of the youngest. That was weird, but apparently a court interview of the kids confirmed the matter, and it was not disputed.

With only the slightest justification, the judge lectured them, "neither of you should be talking to your children about the divorce. You are ruining your children, and giving them scars that they don't need." I guess that she feels strongly about that.

At one point the lawyer complained that the dad is supposed to get the kid from 2:30 to 8:00, but the mom usually does not provide the kid until 3:00, so he wanted 3:00 to 8:30. The mom's lawyer mumbled something about working it out out-of-court, and the dad's lawyer dropped the matter. I don't understand why these lawyers are so feeble. He could have just asked for permission to return the kid a half hour late if he gets the kid a half hour late. Such a request would have been likely granted. As it is, he got nothing. Then when the judge announced a 20-minute break, he said, "enjoy your break, your honor".

After the break, the judge joked about needing a ten-year-old to help with computer skills in running the Dissomaster program.

The next couple had some parenting issues about their 16 year old daughter. The mom didn't like the dad asking some nosy questions. The dad caught the girl being somewhere that she was not supposed to be after being grounded for getting busted for smoking. The judge said that the parents need to "address their inability to communicate" and lectured the dad for rolling his eyes. The judge also told the dad that he needs to build a better relationship with the daughter before imposing discipline, and he did not realize how much the girl had grown up. The judge said that the discipline needs to be in a therapeutic setting, and suggested counseling.

This seemed like yet another case where the court was directly causing harm. Lack of paternal discipline is the single biggest cause of teenaged girls becoming juvenile delinquents. The dad has known and loved this girl for 16 years, and knows what to do to set her straight. The judge knows nothing about the situation, and just recites some psycho mumbo jumbo. This girl obviously needs her dad to have more authority over her, not less. Attending parenting classes when the girl is already a 16 year old delinquent is idiotic.

A woman came forward next with a no-fault divorce. She swore that the marriage was irreparable. Her husband was not there. The divorce papers would be final in a couple of months, and the judge said that no further appearance was needed.

Next a mom complained about safety concerns about the dad and their kids, aged 13 and 15. She complained about guns, drugs, and a convicted felon roommate. He denied that there were any guns or drugs in his house, altho he did say that he likely to shoot at the gun range. He said that she was overreacting because of previous hostility. The judge suggested mediation with Chip Rose or Commissioner Joseph. I cannot imagine two worse choices. The couple ended up saying that they would use Michael Scott.

The last big case was former NFL cornerback Reggie Stephens. He played four years in the NFL, and a couple of years of arena football, and has a 6-year-old child with a woman that he was with for 5 years. She did not believe that he was really broke. He made good money playing football, but has not had a steady job since 2007. He sounded very credible, and agreed to supply all his bank statements and other info. At one point, she said "is getting paid under the table legal?" The judge explained that it was not. He said that he sometimes made some extra cash by helping a local high school football coach. The amounts were not large anyway. The mom also complained about music performances, but it did not sound as if he made any money doing that.

My case finally came at 1:30, before some sort of trial. Nothing of consequence was decided. Maybe I will post the details another day. The day was a horrible waste of time, except that I did learn what sort of a judge the new family court judge is.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012


Think I'm kidding?

This is SICK.

Don’t Take the Bait

They are trying to wear you down

My Ex

When my Ex said she wanted a divorce in November of 2006, she began taking the children to her parents on the days that she determined were “her days” with the children and I had them the rest of the time.  Shortly after she filed for divorce on January 8, 2007, she began to try to build her case against me as an unfit parent.  She would take the children to her parents for half of the week and then she would come back to the house to “monitor” me while I was with the children.  She would get home from work at night at 12:30 AM and block my truck with her car then hide her keys.  She went through my truck, my file cabinet, and my life while I was asleep or away from the house.  My Ex told Dr. Connor and the Court that I was confrontational and I would argue with her in front of the children.  She said that she was unable to talk to me about things because I would walk away.  My Ex told Dr. Connor “everything is a conflict” with me.    My Ex would take the children whenever she wanted as if she hoped that I would grab her and say “no.”  When I tried to escape the situation and stay the weekend at my mother’s house, my Ex claimed that I let my mom watch the children while I went out.  She said I never took the children to the Pediatrician and then said the only reason I rushed our 17 month old daughter to the doctor was to attempt to “show [my] interest in having and being a primary care provider for the girls.”  No one cared that I was rushing my 17 month old daughter to the doctor because she was having problems breathing.  What my Ex did not mention was I was the one who began administering breathing treatments to our 17 month old daughter.  When I was working, she claimed she took care of everything.  When I stayed home and took care of the children, I was a deadbeat husband.  I took care of the girls at least half the time without incident and my Ex testified that it was by luck that they were never injured in my care.  My Ex worked to portray herself as a strong emotionally abused mother who was fighting for the safety of the children.  She was actually building a powder keg that would bring me down if it would have blown up.  Luckily for me, I survived that storm.

Dr. Edward J Connor

After I began to present evidence that demonstrated that Dr. Connor wasn’t telling the truth, Dr. Connor began to build a case that I was a “potentially dangerous” person.  In Dr. Connor’s September 10, 2008 letter to Judge Taul, Dr. Connor attacked me and even said I may suffer from “reality distortion.”  This came after Dr. Connor said my allegations of his misconduct were “patently false and disturbing.”  Prior to September 10, 2008 Dr. Connor never mentioned anything about me being “potentially dangerous.”  Dr. Connor had not met with me since August 9, 2007 so his September 10, 2008 opinions were based on my written attempts to get the case file.  Dr. Connor lied, I caught him, so Dr. Connor used his professional title to destroy my credibility.  Dr. Connor tried to bait me a number of times but I never took the bait.

The “Honorable” Judge James D Humphrey

The last day of the final hearing of my divorce was on June 3, 2009.  Judge James Humphrey didn’t file the Final Decree until August 18, 2009.  Judge Humphrey wrote in the final decree:

“Husband shall not be entitled to visitation until he undergoes a mental health evaluation with a Mental Health Care Provider approved by the Court.  The purpose of this evaluation is to determine if he is a possible danger to the children, Wife and/or to himself.”

People say “So what’s the big deal?  Just go to the evaluation.”  The problem was that I already underwent a psychological evaluation with a Court approved Mental Health Care Provider and Dr. Connor recommended that I care for the children on the days their mother works.
Dr. Connor is allegedly one of the "top" forensic psychologists in the Greater Cincinnati, Ohio area and has been appointed by Judge James D Humphrey on both civil and criminal cases.  Judge Humphrey’s own expert made no mention in his evaluation report of me being a danger to anyone, yet Judge Humphrey wanted me to go through another evaluation at my expense.  I could spend another $2000 on another evaluation, the report can say that I do not present a risk to anyone, and Judge Humphrey could disregard that evaluation as well and prohibit me from obtaining the case file from the evaluation just as he did in the case of Dr. Connor.  If a second evaluation found that I did not present a risk to anyone, Judge Humphrey still would not allow me to have reasonable parenting time.  Judge Humphrey stated in the final decree that even if another evaluator stated that I did not present a danger to the children, Wife and/or myself, I would still have to go through two, two hour supervised visitation sessions a week in a therapeutic setting to determine if I was fit for unsupervised visitation.
I could have two evaluations that state that I do not present a danger to anyone, and despite the fact there is no evidence or testimony indicating that I have ever presented an emotional or physical danger to anyone, Judge Humphrey still would not allow me to go back to be the parent I was prior to when Judge Humphrey arbitrarily deemed me to be a dangerous father.  Judge Humphrey even says “If ordered” as if there is a possibility that it could be determined that I do not pose threat to anyone and Judge Humphrey still would not allow me to have “supervised visitation in a therapeutic setting for four hours a week.”  Why did Judge James D Humphrey do what he did?  He hated me and tried to bait me into to doing something bad.

DO NOT give them the ability to say they were right about you

Why do these people keep coming at me?  Because if they can’t force me to blow up, they look bad for saying that I was “potentially dangerous.”  The danger in this strategy is the emotional damage it inflicts on the children who are used as pawns.  The other danger is you are pushing someone to the limits of human emotionality.  Imagine what you would do if someone took your children from you because they said you were dangerous.  Then imagine what would happen if your ex-spouse wouldn’t let you talk to your children on the phone.  Think about the worry and pain associated not knowing if your children are alright.  What makes the situation even worse is there is no physical restraining order that prevents me from seeing the children; just a vague order that says I cannot exercise parenting time.  I could go to their church or school events and see the girls in public, but what do you say to your 4 and 6 year old daughters who don’t know why they can’t see their daddy anymore?  Mommy lied and took you away from daddy?  A corrupt psychologist and evil judge punished daddy for asking why the psychologist lied?  Then they can go home with the woman who masterminded the whole debacle and get an earful of more BS.  This is my world.  Put yourself in my position.  There is no guarantee that my little girls will still love me when I get to see them again.  For all they know, daddy ran out on them.  You start to understand how a parent can just disappear from their children’s lives.  I could see how some people could just give up.  I can see, not justify, how someone could snap and do something horrible.  Any of the above would be fine for my Ex, Dr. Connor, and Judge Humphrey.  They want the ability to say that they were right because I’m irresponsible and/or dangerous.  Not only will I never give them the pleasure, I am doing the one thing they fear the most; I’m sharing my story with others.  The only way to stop this from happening to other children and families is to tell the story.  People like Dr. Edward J Connor and Judge James D Humphrey use children and their authority to scare people into submission.  My job is to set an example to my little girls by standing up for what is right.

Thursday, July 05, 2012

From a Wife

After describing in detail, at length, to a good friend's wife, the absurd behavior and actions of my ex in the dealings with my son, her response, with frustrated and exasperated face:

"Jesus, it would've been easier to have just killed her!"

Awful to say dear, but God it's awfully hard to disagree with you.

Monday, July 02, 2012

How ON EARTH Does This Carry On?

You may wake up some mornings and ask yourself, in the midst of paying thousands of dollars a month to an ex-wife or girlfriend who doesn't work, while your state collects millions of dollars from the Federal Government for "child support services," HOW ON EARTH has this transparent scam gone on so long without ANY whisper of investigation FROM ANYONE WITH A THINKING BRAIN, even in the outskirts of media, reporting, journalism, etc.!?!?!?

I have a list for you.

1. They picture the worst thing a lawyer friend of theirs has ever heard or "heard of." So they think its about saving children in tattered rags, or about a man who beats his poor, illiterate wife daily. They basically think of sub-Saharan Africa.

2. Its messy. "She cheated? He did? He's hiding money? Where? He didn't cheat but had dinner with a 'friend from college?' She says he beat her? But she's always looked fine and he's always been known as a nice guy? Right? Ahhhhhhhh!!!!! I don't want to know! My brain hurts! Its all just TOO MESSY! I have my own problems! Let some judge figure it out!"

3. Its dirty laundry. "She's been living off her dead husband's family for 3 years? What? I thought she was a doctor? He wants half HER money because he has a drug habit? Oh My God! I. Don't. Want. To. Know!"

4. "Hey, its family law; people drawn to the work are twisted lawyers, anyway. They're wanna-be judges. They have some personal ax to grind. They are trying to get back at someone for some personal events that happened a long time ago."

5. They believe the N.O.W.-sponsored party line: "Its all horrible crime against women!" Someone witnessed a rape, date rape, witnessed their mother suffering abuse at hands of father, an uncle abused someone's daughter, someone's son. "Get the men behind bars! Hurry! The men are loose and they're going to GET YOU!"

5. "Hey, its 2012, right? Ain't everything 50-50 nowadays? Yeah, yeah, I've heard a' 'joint custody,' whatever that is, so that sounds right. Yah. Uh huh. "

6. "Hey, you know there are lots of deadbeat dads out there, right? I've heard that term a lot. 'Deadbeat.' We don't allow 'deadbeats' in this country, son. We take care of OUR women. You got that! You little son-of-a-you-know-what! So don't go tellin' me their ain't men out there who had it comin'! That's right, I say they got what they deserved. Those SOBs shoulda taken a' care a' der wives. What are you gonna do, Blame the Women!?!? And I keep hearin' of these men who won't pay nothin' for their kids. So there must be a lot of 'em!" (The fact you or I probably don't know any and if you do know 'of' one, all you know is the ex-girlfriend or mom got a good lawyer and got "what she deserved," and no one knows why "HE moved away so suddenly (after losing his home, wife and children)."

7. Just grateful that men these days are "forced to pay" for their children! (Uh, I thought the kids belonged to both Mom and Dad? Why does only Dad pay for them? Do women not work or have money? Better check some economic stats before answering that one).

I mean, if these deadbeats (used in place of "men" or "fathers") didn't pay, why I've heard (i.e. THREATENED) that WE, (i.e. you, personally), would have to pay for "all of these men's children that are runnin' around! (cuz women are forced to have every child they conceive?)

And I only pay for my own kids, goddammit!" (The fact that a woman had sex with someone she was planning to have these children with, without asking or informing her partner about her plans (technically Fraud, if true), is quietly ignored; after all, that accusation would be to suggest women were planning to do what they were doing and would be impolite).

All of this is common to the imbeciles posing as educated citizens. The method is familiar. They take any pieces of reality or facts and twist them around their PRE-FORMED MISPERCEPTIONS.  It makes everything add up nice and tidy and let's them watch cable t.v. with microwaved dinners.

Women Have Instincts. Guess What They Are.


More Marijuana Nonsense

via Karl Denninger:
   Bloomberg asks:
Here’s the problem with these laws: There are questions about how, and at what level, cannabis use impairs driving ability. For a patient in one of the 17 states where marijuana has been legalized for medicinal use, how are you to know when it’s legal to drive? After consuming marijuana, should you wait 12 hours to drive or one day? When will your THC level be below the 5-nanogram threshold? The answer is complicated.
Of course it's complicated.

It's complicated for alcohol use too.  But we don't care.  We're more interested in posting up big numbers of "busts", along with the fines, forfeiture, jailings and fees that all of this police-state tactical response produces.  Roadblocks, random sobriety checkpoints and similar are more intended to "show force" than they are to actually get impaired drivers off the road.

If we manage to decrease the crash rate somewhat while applying the boot to the neck of the citizens then that's a nice side effect.

This is exactly backward.

There are already commercially-available reaction time testers that measure actual hand-eye coordination and thus impairment.  They map very well to driving ability and are roughly like a small handheld video game.

Equipping police departments with these would provide actual evidence of impairment and be cause-neutral.  Whether your impairment was caused by weed, booze, lack of sleep, prescription pills or simply old age, you either can react quickly enough to drive competently or you cannot.
The test is objective and maps to the actual skill required to operate at a reasonable level of safety.
This means, of course, that it would "catch" a lot of people who shouldn't be on the road but are, and many of them would be caught for reasons other than "intoxication" per-se.  But this is how it should be -- we should be insisting on a basic level of ability irrespective of how it is achieved or what substance(s) you might have -- or not have -- in your body.
This has not been adopted by the States and local "peace officers" because we no longer have peace officers -- we now have "law enforcement" which is only interested in the public peace as a side effect rather than as the goal of their job.
As a nation, as a people, we can and must do better.
The jackbooted statist parties (Democrat and Republican) won't propose and work to pass this.  They clearly consider public peace a side effect rather than a goal.
But the Libertarians have no excuse in this regard.

Health Law: Insane and Inept

From a former business man who would know, unlike the on-the-take politicians:

PPACA is the Obama-care for those who don't know.

Now consider this -- the PPACA sets forth a "fine" (tax) of $2,000 per employee for a business that has 50 or more and does not provide "at least" the minimum "insurance" to all.
There is no health care plan I'm aware of that a business can buy today that costs less than $2,000 per employee per year, and which also meets the requirements in the law.  None.  That was almost impossible to meet back in 1995 for a healthy, 18 year old insured single male.  It's flatly impossible now and it's doubly-so if your workforce has other than 18-year old single, healthy males in it.  I know this to be factual because I was responsible for buying it for our employees as a CEO of a company.
Therefore the incentive is for all businesses to drop health care.
Second, your choice is to either (1) buy and have said plan (whether through employment or individually) or pay a "fine" (tax) of 1% of income (increasing to 2.5% of AGI in 2016.)  The minimum "fine" is $95 starting in 2013, rising to $695 in 2016.  The average family income is about $50,000/year, which means that the fine (tax) will be $1,250 in 2016.  It's less now.
You cannot buy health insurance at their "minimum level" for anything approaching $1,250 a year no matter how healthy you are at any age. 
The law prohibits insurance companies from charging you more if you're sick, or refusing to cover you at all.  They must accept everyone on equal terms.
  • Businesses will drop coverage; it's cheaper (by far) for them to pay the fine and, for those under 133% of the federal poverty level, those employees can go onto Medicaid.  This is a "family of four" income of $31,900 (as of today; it will go up of course.)  That's roughly the second quintile.
  • Individuals will drop coverage and pay the fine, since it's far cheaper than to buy the "insurance."
Both will buy the "insurance" only when they get sick, since they cannot be upcharged.
The cost of "insurance" will thus skyrocket to 10x or more what it costs now, just as it would if you bought auto insurance only after you wrecked or homeowners insurance only after you had a fire.
At the higher price nobody will be able to afford to buy the insurance at all, since that will be indistinguishable from just paying for whatever is wrong with you, plus the insurance company markup.
In very short order the entire medical system and health insurance scheme will collapse, leaving only two choices -- either a return to free market principles (including all I've argued for since this debate began) or a single-payer, fully-socialized system ala Canada.
You can bet the government will continue to try to change the terms of the deal -- including ramping up the tax/fine and other games, to prevent this outcome, but they will fail.

Sunday, July 01, 2012

Cities and States: Helping Themselves, Fucking You

Ah, gee, what do you know. The MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority) is broke AGAIN. Their solution? You give them more of your money and receive less service from them. And their overpaid employees? 70, 80, 90k/year pensions for people that retire at 45? NOT EVEN UP FOR DISCUSSION.


Mass. commuters brace for steep MBTA fare hike

June 30, 2012|Jay Lindsay, Associated Press

Riders on Boston’s public transportation system are bracing for a steep fare hike that goes into effect Sunday and may be just the start of coming cost increases and service cuts. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority is enacting an average 23 percent fare increase to help close the regional transit system’s $160 million deficit. The increases are more onerous for certain customers, including some disabled riders, who will see fares for The Ride service at least double to $4. Bus fares will rise a quarter, to $1.50, and subway fares will go up from $1.70 to $2 for passengers who pay with CharlieCards. Several bus routes and some weekend commuter rail runs will be eliminated, but the T avoided drastic service cuts by tapping several one-time revenue sources — such as snow removal funds left unused during the mild winter. It might not be able to avoid major cuts again next year, said MBTA general manager Jonathan Davis. “This is not a permanent budget solution,’’ he said. Davis said the agency’s fixed costs are still growing, and it faces another $100 million budget deficit next year. A long-term solution to the system’s chronic funding woes is needed, he said. Sunday’s fare hikes are the first since 2007, and officials say the MBTA’s fares will still be lower than in other major cities, including New York, Chicago and Philadelphia. But opponents say the hikes are a blow to the working class and disabled, and the increases have been vigorously protested, including by wheelchair activists who chained themselves together to block a busy intersection in front of the Statehouse in May. A month earlier, a group of older and disabled riders interrupted the Massachusetts House’s budget deliberations with chants including, “They say cut back, we say fight back!’’ Lee Matsueda of the T Riders Union, a customer advocacy group with about 100 members, said with the fare hikes almost official, state lawmakers need to be reminded that MBTA funding reform is essential because things are projected to get worse. “People can’t get complacent and imagine this is going to be it,’’ he said.

The fare increases hit the average rider hard since many have no other way to get to work, Matsueda said. And the increases on The Ride will be crushing for disabled riders, some of whom are living on fixed incomes and will see their freedom to get around severely limited, he said.

A group calling itself Boston Fare Strike is urging riders to refuse to pay starting Sunday, and it’s holding a public training session on the tactic that day in Copley Square. Strategies include holding subway gates open, slipping onto the backs of buses or persuading drivers not to charge them. Organizers say the new fares are unjust, and hurting the MBTA’s bottom line may be the only way to force lawmakers to view affordable access to public transit as a right they have a duty to protect.
MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo said a fare strike is selfish and misguided “and will serve to do nothing more than worsen the MBTA’s already fragile financial condition.’’
Activists have been heartened by indications from House Speaker Robert DeLeo that transportation will be a priority in the legislative session that starts in January. Matsueda said that gives activists six months to push for solutions, such as renegotiating lower interest rates with banks that hold MBTA debt. He also said the MBTA has been saddled with a disproportionate share of the costs of Boston’s bloated $15 billion Big Dig highway project, and that should change.
New taxes should also be considered, Matsueda said, though he said his group was not yet recommending anything specific.
A proposal by Gov. Deval Patrick in 2007 to increase the gas tax by 21 cents failed. And although DeLeo, Patrick and other lawmakers have pledged to address the MBTA funding problems as part of a broader transportation reform, including finding ways to fix roads and bridges, they’ll face resistance because any meaningful package would likely require new taxes or fees.
The MBTA said that as Sunday approaches it’s working hard to remind people about the service cuts and fare hikes. The agency said its public information campaign has included newspaper ads, email blasts, public service announcements and laminated notices at bus stops on routes facing major changes — 1,300 total.
Davis said that until lawmakers find a long-term funding solution, “the MBTA will continue to do everything it can to improve service despite our fiscal challenges.’’