FrederickS

I had out of pocket expense of around $15,000 when purchasing a new wheelchair. I raised about $10,500 through go fund me. What can I legally deduct as medical expense on my tax return?

I texted a friend and asked him to pick up some prescriptions for me. Three were ready but I told him to only get two as one of them was $90 and not necessary. He didn t read the entire text and picked them all up. It s a cream in a tube in an unopened box.

There is a house down the street from me that was foreclosed on several years ago. It sits empty, and doesn't appear to even be for sale. There's no for sale sign out front. A friend proposed that the reason the bank doesn't make an effort to sell it, and is willing to pay the property taxes year after year is because it is receiving a government subsidy. Is that true? I tried searching this issue and found nothing.

The basic question is, are there federal or state government programs that give financial subsidies to banks that own foreclosed homes. If so, please provide a link where I can read about the program.

I'm libertarian on this issue so would be opposed to any such programs if they do in fact exist.

I bought an iMac about 8 months ago. Since the start the mouse tracking speed has seemed to me to be very slow. I have it set to the fastest level, but when I move the mouse, the pointer on the screen only moves about at the same speed. Is there some setting other than the tracking speed I can change? Does it sound like I just have a defective mouse? Also the batteries don't last very long. I replace them about once a month, and I turn off the mouse overnight. Is that normal?

Thanks

Chairman Peter Lewis is one of the nations biggest funders of liberal/progressive organizations, like ACLU, Moveon, etc. If you're conservative or really anything but a far left liberal, you may want to consider changing companies if you currently have a policy with Progressive. Pass it on. Let's get the truth out about this dangerous company.

http://www.libertyjuice.com/2010/10/20/progressive...

He just doesn't get it. Read this brief article. Americans are very clear thinking and are right to be fearful of his agenda. Obama has spent well over a year explaining his health reform. The problem isn't that people don't understand it. For Obama, the problem is that they do understand. Obama's attitude is "Don't worry about what you're too stupid understand, I know what's best for you" What a guy, lol.

http://visiontoamerica.org/story/obama-americans-a...

In an older version that I'd been using, you select window from the menu at the top and files you have open are listed. You just select the one you want to bring up. I have a newer version now, and that "window" menu item is no longer there. All I can figure is that you have to selected the file from the taskbar. There's got to be something similar to the old "window" method, right?

I'm mostly interested in hearing from those on the left who support Obama. I think this article gives a good perspective on the concerns of conservatives and tea party folks. Do you think he's wrong in his philosophy of government and economics? I hope I get some thoughtful responses.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view...

In their official statement regarding the bombing of a Russian passenger train, the Whitehouse said:

"We are deeply saddened by the terrible loss of life and injuries resulting from the reported derailment of a train between Moscow and Saint Petersburg. As authorities investigate the circumstances of this tragedy, our hearts go out to the families of those who lost loved ones, and we wish a speedy recovery to the injured."

At the time of the statement, I'm pretty sure it was known that the train derailed due to a bombing and that there was a follow up bombing at the same site. The Russian government concluded it was terrorism almost right away, as it clearly was terrorism.

My question is why is this administration so reluctant to use the word terrorism not just in this case, but in general? Why wouldn't they even describe it as an attack? Is it political correctness? Are they afraid of offending someone by labeling them a terrorist? Is it a strategic decision? Do they think if we stop calling terrorists terrorists, they'll like us more and stop engaging in terrorism? Am I just off base in my understanding? I'd like mostly to hear from Obama supporters.

Last week, Jay Leno told this joke "Researchers have found that the phrase most often used by Obama is "Let me be clear", that's the one he uses most often...The phrase he uses least often?..."Let me be specific" You don't hear him say that very often" It got a solid laugh.

I bring it up because it's the first time I've heard a late night host so directly make fun of Obama. Do you think the joke is funny?, and do you think this could be a water shed moment in that Obama's popularity has fallen enough that it's now OK to make fun of him and laugh at him? I hope it gains momentum.

I sense that Obama doesn't at all like criticism and doesn't like being the butt of jokes either. If it continues I wonder if the administration will attack late night shows like they have Fox News. Maybe CNN can fact check Leno's joke! :-)

Comments?

On 3/27/09, Obama announced a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan that he said was the conclusion of a careful policy review. (See NYT link)

On 9/22/09 when asked about his decision on the expected troop request from general McChrsystal Obama said he couldn't make a decision because "I just want to make sure that everybody understands that you don't make decisions about resources before you have the strategy ready"

What happened to the comprehensive strategy he announced 6 months prior? Is he already abandoning that 3/27 strategy? Has something changed between then and now? It seems to me that the only thing that has changed is the politics of the Afghan war.

I hate to say this about an American president, but is it possible that Obama makes decisions as a war time commander in chief based on how the political winds are blowing?

My personal view is that Afghanistan has become a quagmire and we should either go all out for victory, or pull back and just rely on unmanned drones, special forces and intelligence to simply keep the Taliban, and Al Qaida on the run. I think turning Afghanistan into a functioning, even remotely modern democracy is a pipe dream, moon shot. Obama was very clear in his campaign that Afghanistan was the right war, and a war we must win.

I hope some Obama supporters respond. Are my questions/concerns legitimate? What would you advise him to do?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us/politics/27ob...

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20207458...

Here's my understanding. Honduran President Zelaya proposed having a national referendum on the issue of allowing him to serve more than one term. The military, with approval of both the Honduran supreme court, and congress, removed Zelaya from office, and exiled him to Costa Rica. The president of the congress was sworn in as interim president. There will be an election in November to choose a new president.

copied from townhall.com - "Zelaya was legally removed from office in a 15-0 decision by the Honduran Supreme Court for violating Article 239 of the Constitution which states: “No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform…will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.” Significantly, nine of the Supreme Court Justices are members of Zelaya’s party."

The Honduran constitution limits presidents to only one term. In fact the interim president isn't even allowed to run in the upcoming election, because he has now already been president.

The Obama administration is supporting Zelaya and calling for his reinstatement. They have cut off foreign aid to Honduras, and are now restricting travel between the US and Honduras. They have also said they will not recognize the Nov. election.

Can someone make sense of the Obama policy for me? Do I have my facts right? My only guess is that there was a knee jerk reaction, treating this as an illegal coup, and now Obama doesn't want to admit he was wrong.

I wrote up this huge response to some liberal's health reform question only to find the question was removed before I could post my answer! D'oh! I decided to post it as a question instead.

I'm so sick of ignorant liberals who don't know what they're talking about claiming that Republicans have no ideas for health care reform.

Here they are for like the gazzillionth time.

1) Open up competition by removing laws that restrict interstate insurance sales. There are 1300+ health insurance companies in America, but if you live in California, for instance, you can only purchase insurance from 6 of them due to state law. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and should exercise that power. If Obama wants more competition, why doesn't he support this reform?

2) De-regulate health insurance so insurers can sell a wider variety of policies. Right now, every state has strict guidelines on what care insurance has to cover. As a result young healthy people can't buy high deductible, catastrophic only policies. Millions of the uninsured are just those kind of people who don't want comprehensive insurance. Having catastrophic only coverage means you simply pay out of pocket for routine stuff like doctors visits and routine prescription drugs.

3) Expansion and improvement of health savings accounts, wherein people can use the saved money to either pay for health care costs directly, or buy insurance of their choice, rather than choosing only among the insurance provided by their employer. This would also sever the tie between employers and insurance, as the employee would own the policy and keep it if they leave their job. The HSA would add a free market element to health care purchase decisions that would lower costs by making health care users into prudent buyers..

4) Medical malpractice tort reform. By some estimates, the annual cost of MM liability insurance, and defensive medicine practiced to avoid lawsuits costs as much as $200 Billion a year. One suggestion is to set up a medical malpractice arbitration fund paid for by a tax on insurers. Potential claims would be adjudicated by medical experts, and law suits against health providers would be illegal. The current system is basically a jackpot system that funnels a lot of money to trial lawyers.

5) Make all health care expenses tax deductible, not just when paid for by an employer, when they exceed 7.5% of AGI.

6) Administer govt run health plans like medicaid and medicare through tax credits that allow seniors and poor to go out and buy their own policy rather than being stuck with the one policy offered by government. For those of you in Rio Linda, a tax credit is different from a tax deduction. A tax credit is available to anyone, not just those who owe taxes.

My suggestions, don't cost anything, in fact they save money and get more people covered. One problem with health insurance, be it government or private is that a third party is paying for your care, so you have no incentive to shop around for a good deal, and providers have no incentive to become efficient. Just look at the cost of treatments like laser eye surgery that isn't covered by insurance. That surgery has improved, and come down in cost 80-90%. Had it been covered by insurance it probably would still cost $5000 per eye.

Obama and Democrats don't support any of these reforms. Not one of them. How dare liberals say that it is Republicans who don't want real reform. It is Democrats and Obama who simply want to expand the status quo.

I don't often watch the networks or CNN so I don't know if they're covering this story. I think this is a big deal, and it is stunning that he hasn't been fired. I'm wondering if either Jones has something on Obama, and he's basically blackmailing him, or if Obama is so radical himself that he doesn't see anything wrong with Jones' comments. Perhaps the MSM agrees?

Will this put to end the fallacious claim that big Pharma is against Obamacare? Once again, Obama is in cahoots with big business. It is one of the tenets of fascism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-...

Please watch the whole video and comment. I have to say, I laughed several times, and agree with many of his sentiments. I wouldn't use the "N" word like he does, but from what I understand blacks are allowed to use that word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JONE1dBxJNo&feature...

Here's the house health reform bill:

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publica...

Here's an article that raises specific concerns.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13158

Does this reform fit with your understanding of the constitutional role of the Federal government?

Last night he said that he was against health reform that was "PRIMARILY funded through taxing middle-class families." Doesn't that mean he's OK with funding it through middle class tax hikes, as long as that isn't the primary source of funding.

Any middle class folks out there concerned with that? I'm not surprised as there is no way to fund all his spending, simply by taxing the "rich" and also keep his promise of giving a tax cut to 95% of Americans.

Obama said he wasn't there and didn't know the details, yet somehow concluded that the police officers acted "stupidly." Furthermore, Obama is friends with the man arrested which presents a conflict of interest. Is it appropriate for a US president to comment like that on an ongoing local police matter? I think he should have said he didn't know the facts and thus had no comment.

I personally hope that Gates presses the issue, and it sparks a national debate on race, and Obama is forced to weigh in, since he's already injected himself.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/police-...

Obama has been out pushing his health reforms, and keeps talking about the Mayo clinic being a good model for quality care at lower costs. The Mayo clinic released a statement a couple days ago

"Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill – including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects – the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.

In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever – a change in Medicare payment policy – to help drive necessary improvements in American health care. Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of transformation in American health care will wither. The real losers will be the citizens of the United States."

Isn't this just like when Obama talked about the stimulus creating jobs at Caterpillar, and then a few days later Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens said that not only would they not be hiring, but in fact they would be laying off workers. They did in fact announce layoffs of 2400 workers shortly thereafter.

http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.org/2009/07/16/...