Wednesday, December 22, 2010


Citing errors in calculation that led Wellpoint to request a 39 percent rate increase earlier this year in California, the Obama administration issued rules that will require any insurer seeking to raise rates on an individual or small-business plan by more than 10 percent next year to file financial information justifying the raise to federal and state officials.

This is the same old ObamaCare story-a grab at power and the back pockets of the American people disguised as saving us from the big bad insurance companies.

Don't fall for it. The Kenya Bunch are crooks and liars.

All comments in italics are mine.

The Obama administration announced proposed rules Tuesday aimed at curbing large, unwarranted rate hikes by health insurers by subjecting them to mandatory public scrutiny.

Define unwarranted. So now, the man from KENYA and his cronies are underwriters and actuaries and can determine the proper price for an insurance policy?
Under the proposed regulation, which spells out the details of a key provision in the new federal health-care law, next year any insurer seeking a rate increase of 10 percent or more for an individual or small group plan would be required to file financial information justifying the raise with federal and state officials. (Beginning in 2012, the percentage rate increase that triggers the review will be adjusted for each state to reflect its particular market trends.)

All of insurance is priced according to the risk. Automobile policyholders who have accidents pay higher rates than policyholders who do not. Unfortunately, the same holds true with health insurance. If you are a high utilizer, you will pay a higher premium than if you are not. This is another example of Emporer Obama trying to cram a Marixst system down the unsuspecting throats of Americans, who are sadly too uneducated to know the difference.
State authorities would then analyze the data submitted by the insurer to determine if the increase is "unreasonable." If federal officials determine that a state lacks the resources or power to conduct such a review, the federal Department of Health and Human Services would step in to conduct it.

Why is the Federal government involved at all? Insurance is regulated by the states, and I must have missed the paragraph in the U.S. Consitution that gave the Department of Health and Human Services this jurisdiction. Come to think of it, I missed the paragraph that gave Congress the power to create a Department of Health and Human Services.
Either way, if a rate increase were found to be unjustified, that finding would be posted on both HHS's and the carrier's Web site along with the company's financial disclosures - including, for example, how much it is compensating top executives.

Again, the Federal government lacks the expertise, and more importantly, the AUTHORITY for such a power grab. But I can already see mainstream Americonneds bending over and grabbing their ankles.

What happened to the customer exercising their right to say "NO?" If they can get a better rate, they'll go elsewhere. If they can't, doesn't that kind of support the fact that the rate increase is warranted?

The proposed regulation, which was published in the federal register Tuesday, will be open for public comment and will likely take effect in six months, according to HHS officials.

And the United States of America slides ever closer to being the United States' Socialist Republic!

I believe ObamaCare is not only a grab at more power at the Federal level, which makes the Kenya gang traitors to the oaths they swore, but totally unnecessary. Great strides could be made in improving healthcare coverage with a few tweaks:

(1) Eliminate the ability for insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions-this would have an impact on premiums.

(2) Create an "assigned risk" pool for undesirable risks. This takes high risk applicants and assigns them to carriers in the state, and could be used to address the pre-existing issue as well. Premiums would still be on the high side, but the state could subsidize if it desired, and if it could afford to fund it-see item 3)

(3) If the uninsured are a concern, states could raise their thresholds for Medicaid eligibility. This would have to be funded.

(4) Eliminate lifetime policy maximums, or at least bring them in line with the inflation of the last three decades (again, there would be an impact on premiums)

I do not like the ObamaCare rules that cover children to age 26.
Our society already has a problem creating adults, and this just makes it worse.
Heck, they're allowed to consent to sex at sixteen. If they're old enough to screw at sixteen, be in the military at age eighteen, they should be allowed to vote, drink, drive and fend for themselves, including buying their own health insurance.  
But Kenya-Man and his thugs want Americans dumbed down. Easier to control that way.


Wednesday, December 15, 2010



A federal judge in Phoenix has dismissed a challenge to Arizona's new immigration law.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Wednesday granted the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed in July by the League of United Latin American Citizens.

The league sued over training materials distributed to Arizona law enforcement meant to guide the law's implementation, claiming the materials promoted racial and ethnic profiling.

Bolton says the league lacked standing and failed to establish any real and immediate threat of harm.

Gov. Jan Brewer says of the eight federal lawsuits against the state, six have been dismissed.

Portions of the remaining two suits also been dismissed.

The federal government's lawsuit against Arizona on portions of Senate Bill 1070 remains at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

So sanity may yet prevail, and since yet another death of a border official occurred Tuesday night, it cannot come soon enough.

Law-enforcement authorities are scouring mountainous, rocky terrain on foot and on horseback, searching for one of five men suspected of shooting and killing Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on Tuesday night.

Four suspects are in custody, including one who is hospitalized.

Terry, 40, was killed about 11 p.m. while patrolling near Peck Canyon in a remote area by Arizona 289. The scene is about 10 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border and west of Interstate 19.

You may remember my post about this area, a "no man's land" that has all but been surrendered to the Mexican drug cartels because our illegal alien commander-in-chief has sided with the illegals as opposed to the citizens who voted him into office. See the original post here.

I do not hold out hope that our friend from Kenya would make his minions DO THEIR JOB, which is to say defend the border like his cronies are charged to do in the US Constitution.

You remember the Constitution, right? Foundation of our government....the document all these politicians swore to uphold while crossing their fingers atop that bible?

Expecting responsiblity and accountability from Wahsington?

That's crazy talk!

Friday, December 10, 2010


Kathleen Sebeliusn the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has a holiday message for us all, accoring to the USA Today:

"One of the best gifts you can give your family and friends during the holiday season is getting your flu shot."

Kathleen also goes on to say,

"Getting vaccinated is a safe, effective way to keep yourself healthy. And because we often get flu from the people around us, getting vaccinated is also the best way to protect your loved ones."

Really, Kathleen?

Are you sure you're not just trying once again to further the federal policy of scaring the population into subservience and the surrender of the freedoms granted to them under the Constitution?

I'm fifty and have never had the fly. My father is ei-well, he's older than me, and he's had it once. You know when? The ONE TIME he got a flu vaccine.

But if the federal government can scare the Amerconned sheeples into walking into get vaccinated unnecessarily (not to mention being fondled by TSA without foreplay of any kind), it will just make us that much easier to herd into those FEMA camps when the time comes. Anything for Big Brother.

And imagine what they can do with the DNA they collect when they administer the flu shot? Or what they could implant at the same time should they choose to do so?

More wisdom spewing from MS. Sebeliusn:

"This year for the first time ever, the nation's top flu scientists have said that every American 6 months and older should get a flu vaccine. In past flu seasons, experts have recommended the vaccine for children, people at high risk for complications and those around them. But the H1N1 pandemic demonstrated that even healthy young adults can become severely ill from flu. So this winter, the guidance for you and your family is clear: Everyone needs to get vaccinated."

Come on, Kathleen-H1N1 bombed in the ratings-it was the pandemic that wasn't.

"According to our latest data, one-third of Americans have already gotten their flu vaccines as of last month. That's a good start, but it means far too many people still have not. "
Yes-we're called the Americans who THINK FOR THEMSELVES. And two-thirds of Americans is too high a number, so you can expect a bunch more of the sheep to pile into the vaccination chambers.

"But when it comes to staying safe and healthy this winter, the most important step you can take is getting vaccinated. This holiday season, show your colleagues, neighbors, friends, spouses, parents and children you really care. Get your vaccine, and do your part to promote better health this flu season."

Who don't we combine flu shots with TSA security screenings? Everyone can get a sticker, and then breeze right through the airport to their flight! For more convenience, why not just collect income taxes as part of the same transaction.

It'll be a slice of heaven on Earth!

We can have the Post Office organize and administer everything!

Thursday, December 9, 2010


-from the Airheadzona Repugnant (Arizona Republic)
-passages in italics are my own words

The House passed legislation Wednesday to give hundreds of thousands of foreign-born youngsters brought to the country illegally a shot at legal status, a fleeting victory for an effort that appears doomed in the Senate.

The so-called Dream Act, which passed the House 216-198, has been viewed by Hispanic activists and immigrant advocates as a downpayment on what they had hoped would be broader action by President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress to give the nation's 10 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants a chance to gain legal status.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (The DREAM Act) is a piece of proposed federal legislation that has been floating around since August, 2001.

This bill, which I shall call "Amnesty Lite," would provide certain illegal and deportable alien students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. illegally as minors, and have been in the country continuously and illegally for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning.

So who decides on the moral character? Our last three presidents do not have enough integrity between them to get a job at a Seven Eleven cash register.

And who will pay for the college education? Probably the same people who would pay the salary for the military service, that would be you and me, the taxpayers. What I've read says these illegals would be available for work study and student loans. And there is a pretty high default rate on student loans.

Critics railed against the measure, calling it a backdoor grant of amnesty that would encourage more foreigners to sneak into the United States in hopes of being legalized eventually.

The Senate is expected Thursday to vote on whether to advance similar legislation, but it's unlikely Democrats can muster the 60 votes needed to advance it past opposition by Republicans and a handful of their own members.

"It's an uphill struggle," Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, acknowledged.

Debate on the measure was fraught with politics. Obama has made an intense public push in recent days in favor of the measure, eager to demonstrate his commitment to Hispanic voters, a key voting bloc that's been alienated by his failure to push broader immigration legislation.

There's a shock-the illegal Kenyan immigrant wants this bill to pass! He'd be first in line to claim his amnesty!

With the GOP taking control of the House and representing a stronger minority in the Senate next year, failure to enact the legislation by year's end dims the prospects for action by Congress to grant a path toward legalization for the nation's millions of undocumented immigrants.

Tamar Jacoby of ImmigrationWorks USA, a pro-immigration employers coalition, said the defeat won't end Congress' attempts to address the issue but predicted that future legislation will look far different. "Anything that they're going to do is going to disappoint comprehensive immigration reform advocates," Jacoby said. "It's going to be a tough haul" to tackle the subject in the new Congress.

The White House weighed in with Congress before the votes, issuing supportive statements that called the current immigration system "broken," and urged both chambers to pass the measure "while the broader immigration debate continues."

"Young people who have spent much of their lives in the United States and want to improve their lives and their nation by pursuing higher education or defending the United States as members of the armed forces should be given this opportunity to earn legal status," one of the statements said.

Obama's drive to enact the legislation and congressional Democrats' determination to vote on it before year's end reflect the party's efforts to satisfy Hispanic groups whose backing has been critical in elections and will be again in 2012.

The legislation would give hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the United States before the age of 16, and who have been here for five years and graduated from high school or gained an equivalency degree, a chance to gain legal status if they joined the military or attended college.

Hispanic activists have described the Dream Act as the least Congress can do on the issue. It targets the most sympathetic of the millions of undocumented people - those brought to the United States as children, who in many cases consider themselves American, speak English and have no ties to or family living in their native countries.

Students who would be eligible for legalization under the bill have fanned out across Capitol Hill in recent days to personally lobby lawmakers to back it. A group of them was seated in the House gallery to watch the vote, and they broke out in cheers, some embracing each other as the vote on passage was announced.

Earlier, Democrats took to the House floor to paint the measure as a matter of basic decency.

"Have a little compassion," Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., said, directing his remarks at the GOP. "These children came here, they didn't decide to come here. They know no other country. Some of them don't even know the language of the country in which they were born, and they deserve to have a right as free Americans."

Their pleas did little to move firm Republican opposition.

"It is not being cold-hearted to acknowledge that every dollar spent on illegal immigrants is one dollar less that's spent on our own children, our own senior citizens and for all those who entered this society who played by the rules, who paid their taxes and expect their government to watch out for their needs before it bestows privileges and scarce resources on illegals," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.

Just eight Republicans joined Democrats to back the bill, while more than three dozen Democrats broke with their party to vote against it.

Cheers to Ms. Rohrabacher for telling it like it is! We have states going bankrupt, we're borrowing money from China like a drug addict steals money from his family, and a majority of Congress thinks it's a good idea to further burden an overloaded social welfare system with more cash outlay and no plan to balance the deficit issue we're already faced with.

Not to mention that the US Constitution says that these TRAITORS in Washington have a DUTY to protect our borders.

And they even have Federal LAWS that spell out how they are to do it.

But our President (TRAITOR), and Bilary Clinton (TRAITOR) and Nancy Pelosi (TRAITOR) and Janet Napolitano (TRAITOR) and Susan Bolton (TRAITOR) are preventing Arizona for defending its own border when this gang of criminal thugs refuses to do what they swore they would do.

Now why would our government want to make it easy for illegals to enter the country, and a cake walk for these children of illegal alien parents to gain legal status?

Well you have seen where I have hinted at the Marxist (read: Communist) agenda our government has seemed to be pushing for the last half century or so. If you read Stephen T. McCarthy's blog, he does not hint-he gives you an awful lot of examples.

The constant erosion of the middle class is not an accident! According to an article I read in the liberal toilet paper known as Time a few years back, for 2004, ninety percent of the income tax returns filed in America showed an adjusted gross income of $100,000 or less!

Before you say "$100K is pretty good," wait a minute. That's 90% of RETURNS. That includes marrieds filing jointly, many of which are two income families. And $100K when you're raising a family...let's just say you're not living in a Donald Trump zip code.

Another interesting tidbit. The richest 0.5% make over $500,000 per year. This should scare you, no matter what party affiliation you hold.


When Obama talks about the rich, guess what? HE'S ONE OF THEM!

When Bill Maher talks about the money-grubbiong capitalists-DITTO!

When Bruce Springsteen sings about the working man-HE DON'T HAVE A FRIGGIN' CLUE!

When John Lennon wrote "Imagine there's no possessions" IT WAS ON LINEN PAPER WITH A SOLID GOLD PEN!

These people you are trusting to watch over your well being are the SAME RICH PEOPLE you want to be protected from.

Do you think there may be a conflict of interest here?

In the history of the world, has it ever happened that the rich gave all of their money away?

Is that what happened in Communist Russia?

Or was is closer to something like, I don't know, 99.5% of the wealth in the hands of half a percent of the people?

My mistake-that's the ratio in Socialist America!

Wednesday, December 8, 2010


Call it the McVictim syndrome.

Too many pundits, public health experts and politicians are working overtime to find scapegoats for America's obesity epidemic.

The real answer, of course, is too many happy meals.

In his latest book, former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler argues that modern food is addictive. In it, he recounts how he was once helpless to stop himself from eating a cookie.

Are you kidding me? Could you be any less of a wuss? Man up, David!

In a paper in this month's Journal of Health Economics, University of Illinois researchers join a long list of analysts who blame urban sprawl for obesity.

How long before we're told that the devil made us eat it?

Personally, I blame the Liberals.

The McVictim syndrome spins a convenient — and unhealthy — narrative on America's emerging preventable disease crisis. McVictimization teaches Americans to think that obesity is someone else's fault — and therefore, someone else's problem to solve.

Which is one of America's problems-our government has grown out of control because the average citizen is all too eager to let Washington think for them. As long as they can stimulate their minds with programs like "Dancing With The Survivors" and "American Wife-Swapping Bachelor Idols" they are content to let the Council on Foreign Relations tell them what to think, what to believe, when to wear a seat belt, and when to wipe their children's behinds.

The truth: In the vast majority of cases, obesity is a preventable condition. So those of us in the medical community must be candid with overweight patients about the risks they face and the rewards of better health choices. But it's also time for American policymakers to show the same level of candor.

All things being equal, the simplest explanation is often the right one.

And the simplest explanation for the dramatic rise in obesity rates — roughly doubling as a percentage of the total population in just a quarter-century — is the surge in our daily caloric intake.

Excess food now, excess weight later. And Americans won't make better choices if the McVictim syndrome provides a convenient excuse to carry on as before.

Obesity is preventable, but its consequences seem difficult to avoid.

Consider that the cost of treating resulting conditions such as diabetes is about 7% of all U.S. healthcare spending — and a significant drain on federal and state budgets. Obesity is a national security threat because it severely limits the pool of military recruits; in 2009, the Pentagon indicated that since 2005, 48,000 potential troops had flunked their basic physical exams because they weighed too much.

Most important, obesity is a human threat, destroying otherwise healthy lives and increasing personal health costs, all for the sake of a few daily moments of instant gratification.

For these reasons, there is a role for government to play in attacking obesity.

Stop sponsoring school lunch programs that push our children toward obesity at taxpayers' expense.

Stop subsidizing businesses that use taxpayer dollars to produce and market unhealthful foods. In fact, stop subsidizing business.

Promote insurance reforms that support preventive medicine.

First and most important, we MUST eradicate the philosophy behind the McVictim syndrome.

Americans must accept the fact that a poor diet is almost always a poor personal choice.

Encouraging Americans to cut their dietary health risks is a responsible act of citizenship.

It's absurd to pretend that Americans are helpless to make that choice.

The McVictim syndrome is far too prevalent, which promotes the notion that regulations and laws are the primary solution to the problem.

Hey America-do you want the federal government to micromanage your waistline for you?

How about this? Walk to work and don't order a second piece of pie.

If Americans would just wise-up, and realize that it's all about the calories YOU consume. I have a lot more waist than I did twenty years ago, but no one put a gun to my head and said "Eat cheese steaks." I made that choice.

Also, Americans need to get smart about advertising. Stop eating 100-calorie Twinkies and thinking it's a miracle food.

Here's the miracle: IT'S SMALLER.

Here's how to make the miracle yourself: CUT A REGULAR TWINKIE IN HALF

Here's how to make it healthy: THROW IT AWAY AND EAT AN APPLE

Link to the full article...

Monday, December 6, 2010


Well it did not take them long to start morphing ObamaCare into the real agenda, huh?

An Office of Personnel Management plan to launch a comprehensive database of federal workers' health-care records has raised the ire of some privacy advocates, employee unions and consumer groups.

The OPM is organizing a research database of insurance claims filed by the 8 million workers and dependents enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as well as participants in two other federally administered programs. The claims data, which will be supplied by the private insurers that participate in the FEHBP, will help the OPM figure out ways to lower costs, improve quality and fight fraud, the agency has said.

But critics - including the American Civil Liberties Union, Consumers Union and the American Federation of Government Employees - argue that the government should avoid setting up a repository of sensitive information that could be vulnerable to privacy breaches. At minimum, they say, the OPM should provide more information about how the database, the Health Claims Data Warehouse, will work and who will have access to it.

"We're talking about a government database with health diagnoses, payment information and procedures," said Harley Geiger, policy counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a public interest firm based in Washington. "Enrollees are almost certainly unaware that the government plans to compile all that into one big federal database."

The OPM has asserted that it has "a strong track record" of protecting the privacy of sensitive employee information. It also extended, until Dec. 15, the comment period for the project and said it's considering putting out "a more detailed explanation of how the records in this system will be protected and secured."

The database, approved as part of the new health-care law, will collect data on health services from about 230 private health plans offered to federal workers through the FEHBP.

Information also will be compiled from enrollees in two other programs created by the health law. One involves the high-risk pools set up by the Department of Health and Human Services for people who cannot get insurance because of medical problems. The other involves private "multi-state plan options" for individuals and small businesses. These plans, to be administered by the OPM, will be available on state-based exchanges beginning in 2014. The database will be the largest government aggregation of private health plan data compiled in the United States, analysts say.

Once the OPM database is functioning, the agency plans to gather monthly updates on such things as medical diagnoses, surgical procedures and prescription drug use. In theory, the database will allow the OPM to scrutinize a specific group of enrollees - those with diabetes, for example - to identify the most effective treatments.

Or to target work force reductions...since when is the OPM qualified to identify the most effective treatments?

The data, according to an Oct. 5 Federal Register notice by the OPM, will be used by agency analysts, as well as some other federal agencies, to discern costs and trends. Certain outside researchers also could get access to the material, almost always in an aggregated form, according to a senior OPM official involved in the project who spoke on the condition of anonymity because details for the database remain under review.

Researchers say the database could be helpful if constructed and used properly; it could, for example, lead to wider adoption of "best practices" as well as lower costs, said Kevin O'Brien, a director of the California-based data analytics firm Berkeley Research Group.

Am I the only one who would rather my employer not know the intimate details of my health care? I guess there is no risk they'd save costs by laying off high utilizers, huh?

Even modest cost reductions could produce substantial savings for the government and workers. OPM Director John Berry, in a report on the agency's 2009 performance, said reducing annual premium growth by 0.1 percent for three consecutive years would save the FEHBP $1.25 billion over 10 years. The agency, on average, picks up 70 percent of the cost of premiums; workers pay the rest.

But privacy advocates aren't assuaged. They note that the data collected by the OPM will include names, birth dates and other personal identifying information. In addition, they say it is unnecessary for the OPM to set up its own database because insurers already store health information.

In the private sector, employer access to such information is restricted. Why wouldn't it be the same for the government? Oh yeah, I forgot, our democracy was overthrown.

"One of the big concerns here is the duplication," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel to the ACLU. Calabrese would rather see the OPM use a "pointer system" to locate the information it needs. "Instead of having all the information in one database, if you want info on Patient X . . . go directly to the record source," he said.

OPM officials counter that the privacy concerns are overblown. The senior OPM official said researchers will not be permitted to see personal identifiers. The agency had said earlier that the health data could be subject to the "routine uses" that apply to most federal databases under the Privacy Act of 1974. That means the records could be pulled by law enforcement officials in a criminal investigation or used in a congressional inquiry. Now, the official said, the agency is considering narrowing the list of agencies that would be granted special access to its records. Within the OPM, the data will be made available only to analysts with the proper clearances, the official said.

Overblown? Are you kidding me? In what alternate reality has the government shown it can administer ANYTHING?

In addition, the OPM official said, asking insurance companies to independently analyze their own data would defeat a key purpose of the database - which is to compare health plans. For example, one plan might charge more than another for prescription drug programs, and the data could help the OPM decide whether to drop one pharmacy benefits manager in favor of another. About 30 percent of the FEHBP's spending goes for prescription drugs.

Of course, you would not need patient-level detail to draw a conclusion about the cost of a prescription drug plan, and insurance carriers already provide this information routinely to their customers.

The OPM's proposal is not unprecedented - Tricare, the military's health-care program, has data on its participants, and the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services keeps information on Medicare beneficiaries. But Tricare, Medicare and Medicaid are public health programs; OPM's database will be collecting health information from private plans. The California Public Employees' Retirement System maintains a database on the private health plans it manages. The OPM's project would be similar.

Get ready, America! Aunt Pelosi and Uncle O'Kenya would NEVER use your sensitive health information to further their own agendas.....right?

*thanks to Utopia for the title (song title from their Oblivion album released in 1983)

Sunday, December 5, 2010


Once again, Ron Paul stands up as the lone voice for freedom in our wasteland of a Marxist federal government gone amok over the last few decades...

Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is standing up for the founder of WikiLeaks, going against many of his Republican colleagues by defending Assange's leaks of secret American documents.

In a Thursday interview with Fox Business, Paul said that Julian Assange should get the same kind of protections as the mainstream media when it comes to releasing information.

"In a free society we're supposed to know the truth," Paul said. "In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it."

"This is media, isn't it? I mean, why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?" he added.

Many of Paul's Republican colleagues have voiced their outrage towards Assange, including former Gov. Mike Huckabee, who said Tuesday that the site's founder should be tried for treason and even face the death penalty. Democrats have also been vocal critics of Assange.

Indeed, the founder has few friends in Washington, with lawmakers lamenting the negative impact the release of the hundreds of thousands of private cables could have on national security.

On Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Justice Department is weighing whether Assange could be criminally charged for posting the documents.

Paul is no stranger to unpopular stances, and has split with his parties on issues like the war in Afghanistan, the role of the Federal Reserve and America's membership in NATO. His son Rand Paul, a Republican Tea Party favorite, was elected to the Senate from Kentucky last month.

As my friend Stephen T. McCarthy has said many times, "Two Paul's are better than one!"