PEOPLE WHO SMOKE, PENALIZED IN OBAMACARE -
OUR GOVT. @ WORK

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS

Hello America, and how is the world treating you?


The new Obamacare health plan ha a lot of hidden agendas  in it's construct for special interest groups. One group, the insurance industry. For example, the insurance companies can charge people who smoke up to fifty (50%) percent more in premiums for their health care than for those that do not smoke. That's not fair. It will cost the person thousands more a year than a nonsmoker. That is a big penalty on a lot of low income and senior citizens. The plan suggests that elderly people who have been smoking for more that twenty years should be hit with the outrageous premiums.

Talk about discrimination? This health plan is a poster child for  that. I submit everyone should be treated the same.  Premiums should be based on two things, that being, the person themselves and their age, nothing more. What the person does with their life is their business and when they fall ill they should be allowed to be treated without the insurance companies looking into their social life. If a person smokes, so what? If he or she is sick treat them.

This  raunchy health plan is nothing more  than a vehicle for the government to intrude into a person life, restrict a persons access to  heath care by using  idiotic qualifiers. Who benefits? The government and the insurance companies. Who bought who off, people? It looks as though the insurance lobby threw billions of dollars into Obama's and his friends pocket books for favored treatment.

I suggest, if Obamacare is going to  tell people who smoke that they have to pay fifty percent higher premiums for insurance why not tell people who drink alcohol, or those that are obese that they will also have to pay much higher premiums  than those that do not drink alcohol or gorge themselves on food. Obamacare tries to rationalize the smokers penalty as a health problem. Well Obama, what the devil do you call obesity and alcoholics? They are also a health problem.

Where will the insurance companies stop? They will say most everything s a health  problem so they can squeeze out high premiums from us citizens.and the administration plays along with these dummies.

Next thing will be if a person drinks coke, Pepsi or coffee and who eats, pies, cake, burgers, etc. the government and insurance companies will say they are not looking out for their health and that gives the insurance company the right to jack up  the persons premium.

And you know the lawmakers will never, ever put a high premium of those that drink alcohol - -why? because most are booze hounds themselves.

Who's to say who is going to get sick in the future, but to stack the deck by excluding people by how they live their lives is nuts.

I submit that whether  a person is a smoker, boozer, obese person, etc., they deserve the same health policy and treatment as anyone that does not partake in such vices. Wow! Big brother people. The government wants to take care of you from cradle to grave and tell you what you can and cannot do. Freedom of choice will be a thing of the past. And, that's my opinion, Make your own decision. You decide.

Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

Hillary Clinton's Testimony  Before the Senate Committee Was a Joke

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS

Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

 The Benghazi fiasco was addressed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee  regarding the U.S. mission there.

All she did with her testimony was try to  confuse and distract the committee by arguing in an angry confrontational  tone that she  "knew nothing" on her part about seeing any requests regarding security issues in Libya made by Stevens and others.

This dog and pony show was only to  support the  Obama administrations position on this matter. Clinton really didn't address and sufficiently answer questions that required specific answers. Only a couple of the committee members took issue with her responses. The rest laid back and  let her bob and weave in a vague convoluted manner.

I suggest that all she did in this committee hearing was begin to lay a groundwork for her run at the presidency in 2016.

After the administration and people from her department made numerous excuses for the attack all she could say was: : What difference, at this point, does it make?" "It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we  can to prevent it from ever happening again." What difference does it make? I say, it makes a big difference. If the requests by Stevens were met, he and others would still be alive today.

I suspect that many emails, memos, and communications were indeed sent in relation to  requests for security and seen by the State Department higher-ups, which may have included Clinton.However it is so easy to distance yourself from the incident by making blanket statements like, ". I never saw anything." " I was unaware.  Hell, Clinton is the head of the State Department and we are expected to believe that she does not read communications that come through the State Department from her representatives and ambassador's? What good is she to the State Department id she fails to oversee its operations?

I submit there are paper trails that would clearly show  what communications were received, by whom, and who the communication were passed on to.  I would submit that everyone who had access to the cables, emails, correspondence, etc., should be held accountable and heads should roll. But to date - -nothing! Stonewall and cover up. That's our government in action folks.-And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.

Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

BEYONCE PRETENDS TO SING. DOESN'T HAVE THE PIPES TO DO IT ON HER OWN

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS

Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

 An inaugural  that was a sham. Why? Because most of the politicians and lawmakers played along.

Beyonce, a wanna be singer lip-syncs the words to the national anthem.Shame on her and all of the  leaders of the country for going along. They stood there like a bunch of ninnies and applauded a record pretending to acknowledge an artists work.

Here's a lady that is afraid to let a performance rise or fall on the merits of her so-called talent. One of her excuses according to her entourage was that she was afraid of making a mistake. What? Hell, if an entertainer performing before a crowd make a boo-boo, so what? People make mistakes and the audience can understand a mistake. At least the mistake would be a real mistake. But to pull the wool over an audiences eyes by "pretending" to sing - - COME ON!

It's sad that a lot of these current performers do what Beyonce is alleged to have done. Rather than use their own voice, backed up by a live band of musicians some of these  current so-called pop icons cut a track in the studio and then use mixers and  electronic magic to help them sound good. What a rip off. The days of Tony Bennett, Frank Sinatra, Humperdinck, Patti Page, etc., are long gone. Those talents used their "own" voice, which was always backed up by live musicians. They got paid for performing, using their own God given talent.

Beyonce, Brittany and others have always taken a shortcut and used technology to make up for their shortcomings and lack of talent. I guess just because a lady has a good body or is attractive any PR person will turn them into a so-called star.

To me, lip-syncing is a no-no, always has been. If I wanted to hear a performer PRETEND to sing I would buy one of their CD's that in all likelihood was manipulated in a sound studio. However, when I want to see a live performance, I expect a live

performance, "good or bad."  Christ, why doesn't Beyonce and all these other bubble gum lip-syncer's carry a karaoke machine under their arm and be up front and tell the audience that everything is pre-recorded and that they're going to sing along to the words already on the CD. Lip-sync is not performing, that's acting and lying. People, if I want karaoke I can go to most any bar in anytown USA and get my fill.

The  upsetting thing to me is because this lady couldn't or wouldn't rehearse with the Marine Corp band, the band had to pick up their instruments and PRETEND they were playing the music. Wow!

As a side note I was a member of the U.S.M.C. band back in the 1950's. Every person in  the band was an exceptional musician. You had to be to make the cut and play with the band. But because of this no talent singer the elite U.S.M.C. band had to  act like a bunch of performing monkeys pretending to be playing music behind Beyonce. What an embarrassment that must have been for the band members.I know it was embarrassing for me to see.

Personally, I would never pay to see a performer lip-sync a performance. Never have, never will. I want the entertainer to preform live  sharing their actual  talent without any assist from ear pieces and pre-recorded tracks. I think that anyone who would pay good money to see someone stand on stage and pretend to sing is a looney tune.

What these new current entertainers should be required to do is issue a disclaimer and tell the audience that they will e pretending to sing the songs and then if the person wants to pay to watch a cheap karaoke performance then it's on them.- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.

Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com