Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Oh Yeah!
In case you missed it...that last quote? "We'll have to come out and kill somebody I guess."
Another Phony Argument
Phony Argument: People with pre-existing conditions cannot get health insurance coverage! The only way they can get someone else to pay some of their bills is if the government forces other people in their insurance pool, particularly young, healthy people, to be in the same risk pool as the known-to-be-expensive-to-cover people.
Response: Again, partially correct. Again, the problem is too much government interference, not too little. The answer is less government interference, not more. Here's the basic problem - the government does not allow insurers to operate across state lines. I can't join an insurance pool in Hawaii. As a result, risk pools are kept artificially small. Particularly in sparsely-populated states, where the population pool itself is small, the small number of people with particularly high health care costs really skew the balance. Put simply, if you take a small group of people who pay premiums, one person with very high health care requirements will eat up all the premiums and beyond. There is no incentive for an insurer to insure that person. Why are they going to operate a business with a known-negative cash flow? Only charities and governments operate that way. Which is why there are government programs and charities to assist with such costs (that very likely need revamping and coordinating). If you add a requirement for insurers to cover that new, higher-cost member they have no choice but to raise their premiums for everyone (because they are not allowed to charge anyone significantly more than anyone else, so the olympic decathlete is charged an amount not far off from the semi-paralyzed, alcoholic, cancerous smoker) to cover their new payouts. Or they simply go out of business, which we all know is the real goal of this plan, because some Democrats have admitted as much. That is why this is socialism on the installment plan.
So how do we fix this with less government interference? How does allowing insurers to sell across state lines fix this, or help fix it? Well, go back to our example. What if an insurer was able to mix in the people with pre-existing conditions in Montana with an insurance pool like California? Hmmm...suddenly the premiums from all those people can cover the outliers' higher costs, right? Or, alternatively, you could have an insurer (or many) set up 'high risk' pools that will charge more for premiums, but will let those with pre-existing conditions and their families buy into a large pool that draws from all around the nation. Again, the Democrats have killed this idea. Not only is the idea of selling across state lines still forbidden, but no insurance plan can charge a lot more than any other plan within a state.
But wait - there's more! This is still going to be an expensive proposition, isn't it? Sure. But what if the insurers offering such plans tailor them to the needs of these high-risk patients? Gee, what a concept! Unlike the Democrats socialist takeover of health care and insurance, what if insurers were allowed to offer these people what they really need and that's it? So these plans would probably not cover fertility treatments, 'free' preventative care, massages, generic drugs (which you can already get for like $4 at Target and elsewhere), marriage counseling, Viagra for sex offenders...all the stuff Obamacare requires be in insurance plans. So someone with a heart condition can't get massages and has to pay a co-pay during checkups and can't get fertility treatments...but they can get insurance that helps them pay for the drugs they need. Even better, and I don't know if the numbers work out, but I bet they might, what if insurers were allowed to offer a plan that combines pre-existing conditions with catastrophic coverage? So, by taking advantage of the free market instead of threats of imprisonment (yes, that's a real threat now, if you don't get insurance you are taxed and if you don't pay your taxes you go to jail) you are sucking in nice gobs of money from young, healthy people that just want coverage in case they're hit by a car and combining that with steep, but affordable, premiums from those with pre-existing conditions and the risk is spread out a bit more. Remember - this is NOT ALLOWED at the current time. Because the states have these requirements on what health plans MUST cover. If you allow selling across state lines, then some state is going to relax their rules to allow for less coverage in some plans and all the insurers will incorporate there and then people all across the country will be able to buy into these plans, further spreading the risk. Of course this will cause other states to relax their standards (single men rarely need fertility treatments or gynecological visits for example) to try to lure insurers to their state. It's called competition - the free market. It works.
Look back at our free market example yesterday, laser eye centers. Cheaper, less fancy centers now serve people all over the place. Again, they still must meet basic safety levels per health department regulations (as they should). If you stop forcing doctors to take certain people on certain plans for certain amounts...is it really that hard to envision cheaper clinics, maybe staffed by older doctors that want to cut back on their hours and play golf 3 days a week and work 2, opening up with the express purpose of serving those on these higher-risk plans? In return for a lighter schedule they charge less (but they get to charge something and aren't forced to run some kind of government-mandated insurance gauntlet with every patient. As a result, there is more money left over in these plans for treatments, medications, etc. And is is really that hard to imagine that, if drug makers are allowed to continue to sell drugs at prices that offset development costs, they might be willing to expand programs that they already have (greedy bastards!) to help people pay for their medications when they need such assistance - offering more samples and subsidies to these clinics? And, of course, the doctors would need to be licensed, the clinics would need to meet minimum safety standards like any other. But, again, no big screen TVs showing Obama speeches on a loop and maybe a newspaper instead of Oprah magazine on the waiting room table.
Now, look. I'm not a doctor, I'm not in any kind of medical field. And yet in my free time I can envision extremely plausible plans to address the very real needs of those with pre-existing conditions - all while reducing government control. I bet actual doctors and insurance experts could come up with things that would make my plans look as bad as my ideas make Obamacare look.
If you need another example to use when chatting about Obamacare with your local candidate to replace your current Democrat, how about this? Weather insurance. I sort of brought it up before in a not so serious way. But it's not that unreasonable. Why is hurricane insurance so expensive that the government has been forced to sell it because insurers can't afford to do so? Because the only people that buy hurricane insurance are people that get hit by hurricanes. They have a pre-existing condition. Same with floods. But what if individual state mandates were removed? What if insurers could sell 'natural disaster insurance'? Mudslide riskers in CA could buy, tornado riskers in KS could buy, hurricane riskers in FL could buy, flood riskers all over could buy, blizzard riskers in NY could buy. Hell, sweeten the pot - make states and local governments buy in instead of bailing them out with federal money after the fact. Now, should the country be swept by natural disasters a la some Roland Emmerich movie, this might not work out. But that doesn't happen. One year this place gets a hurricane and a wildfire hits somewhere else. Everybody else is just paying their premium. The next year there's a blizzard and some tornadoes. Again, everyone else just pays premiums. Suddenly the risk pool might just be big enough to make it work. But it doesn't work when the government gets too involved...suddenly southern Californians have to buy blizzard coverage, Minnesotans are buying hurricane coverage, mountain-top dwellers have flood insurance, etc etc.
I bet it could work. If there's any money, even the 3% that health insurers bring in, to be made - someone will make it work.
Response: Again, partially correct. Again, the problem is too much government interference, not too little. The answer is less government interference, not more. Here's the basic problem - the government does not allow insurers to operate across state lines. I can't join an insurance pool in Hawaii. As a result, risk pools are kept artificially small. Particularly in sparsely-populated states, where the population pool itself is small, the small number of people with particularly high health care costs really skew the balance. Put simply, if you take a small group of people who pay premiums, one person with very high health care requirements will eat up all the premiums and beyond. There is no incentive for an insurer to insure that person. Why are they going to operate a business with a known-negative cash flow? Only charities and governments operate that way. Which is why there are government programs and charities to assist with such costs (that very likely need revamping and coordinating). If you add a requirement for insurers to cover that new, higher-cost member they have no choice but to raise their premiums for everyone (because they are not allowed to charge anyone significantly more than anyone else, so the olympic decathlete is charged an amount not far off from the semi-paralyzed, alcoholic, cancerous smoker) to cover their new payouts. Or they simply go out of business, which we all know is the real goal of this plan, because some Democrats have admitted as much. That is why this is socialism on the installment plan.
So how do we fix this with less government interference? How does allowing insurers to sell across state lines fix this, or help fix it? Well, go back to our example. What if an insurer was able to mix in the people with pre-existing conditions in Montana with an insurance pool like California? Hmmm...suddenly the premiums from all those people can cover the outliers' higher costs, right? Or, alternatively, you could have an insurer (or many) set up 'high risk' pools that will charge more for premiums, but will let those with pre-existing conditions and their families buy into a large pool that draws from all around the nation. Again, the Democrats have killed this idea. Not only is the idea of selling across state lines still forbidden, but no insurance plan can charge a lot more than any other plan within a state.
But wait - there's more! This is still going to be an expensive proposition, isn't it? Sure. But what if the insurers offering such plans tailor them to the needs of these high-risk patients? Gee, what a concept! Unlike the Democrats socialist takeover of health care and insurance, what if insurers were allowed to offer these people what they really need and that's it? So these plans would probably not cover fertility treatments, 'free' preventative care, massages, generic drugs (which you can already get for like $4 at Target and elsewhere), marriage counseling, Viagra for sex offenders...all the stuff Obamacare requires be in insurance plans. So someone with a heart condition can't get massages and has to pay a co-pay during checkups and can't get fertility treatments...but they can get insurance that helps them pay for the drugs they need. Even better, and I don't know if the numbers work out, but I bet they might, what if insurers were allowed to offer a plan that combines pre-existing conditions with catastrophic coverage? So, by taking advantage of the free market instead of threats of imprisonment (yes, that's a real threat now, if you don't get insurance you are taxed and if you don't pay your taxes you go to jail) you are sucking in nice gobs of money from young, healthy people that just want coverage in case they're hit by a car and combining that with steep, but affordable, premiums from those with pre-existing conditions and the risk is spread out a bit more. Remember - this is NOT ALLOWED at the current time. Because the states have these requirements on what health plans MUST cover. If you allow selling across state lines, then some state is going to relax their rules to allow for less coverage in some plans and all the insurers will incorporate there and then people all across the country will be able to buy into these plans, further spreading the risk. Of course this will cause other states to relax their standards (single men rarely need fertility treatments or gynecological visits for example) to try to lure insurers to their state. It's called competition - the free market. It works.
Look back at our free market example yesterday, laser eye centers. Cheaper, less fancy centers now serve people all over the place. Again, they still must meet basic safety levels per health department regulations (as they should). If you stop forcing doctors to take certain people on certain plans for certain amounts...is it really that hard to envision cheaper clinics, maybe staffed by older doctors that want to cut back on their hours and play golf 3 days a week and work 2, opening up with the express purpose of serving those on these higher-risk plans? In return for a lighter schedule they charge less (but they get to charge something and aren't forced to run some kind of government-mandated insurance gauntlet with every patient. As a result, there is more money left over in these plans for treatments, medications, etc. And is is really that hard to imagine that, if drug makers are allowed to continue to sell drugs at prices that offset development costs, they might be willing to expand programs that they already have (greedy bastards!) to help people pay for their medications when they need such assistance - offering more samples and subsidies to these clinics? And, of course, the doctors would need to be licensed, the clinics would need to meet minimum safety standards like any other. But, again, no big screen TVs showing Obama speeches on a loop and maybe a newspaper instead of Oprah magazine on the waiting room table.
Now, look. I'm not a doctor, I'm not in any kind of medical field. And yet in my free time I can envision extremely plausible plans to address the very real needs of those with pre-existing conditions - all while reducing government control. I bet actual doctors and insurance experts could come up with things that would make my plans look as bad as my ideas make Obamacare look.
If you need another example to use when chatting about Obamacare with your local candidate to replace your current Democrat, how about this? Weather insurance. I sort of brought it up before in a not so serious way. But it's not that unreasonable. Why is hurricane insurance so expensive that the government has been forced to sell it because insurers can't afford to do so? Because the only people that buy hurricane insurance are people that get hit by hurricanes. They have a pre-existing condition. Same with floods. But what if individual state mandates were removed? What if insurers could sell 'natural disaster insurance'? Mudslide riskers in CA could buy, tornado riskers in KS could buy, hurricane riskers in FL could buy, flood riskers all over could buy, blizzard riskers in NY could buy. Hell, sweeten the pot - make states and local governments buy in instead of bailing them out with federal money after the fact. Now, should the country be swept by natural disasters a la some Roland Emmerich movie, this might not work out. But that doesn't happen. One year this place gets a hurricane and a wildfire hits somewhere else. Everybody else is just paying their premium. The next year there's a blizzard and some tornadoes. Again, everyone else just pays premiums. Suddenly the risk pool might just be big enough to make it work. But it doesn't work when the government gets too involved...suddenly southern Californians have to buy blizzard coverage, Minnesotans are buying hurricane coverage, mountain-top dwellers have flood insurance, etc etc.
I bet it could work. If there's any money, even the 3% that health insurers bring in, to be made - someone will make it work.
Has-Been LL Cool J Latest To Get FoxNews 'Well-Wish'
It's possible you've stumbled across this in the past - the retaliation that FoxNews employs against attackers. Utilized sparingly, and only after provocation, certain people that feel they're 'above' the #1 rated cable news channel and can wipe their feet on it have found themselves on the receiving end of a wish for the best from FoxNews.
Watch Your Back When Fox News Wishes Well
Watch Your Back When Fox News Wishes Well
If someone at Fox News Channel wishes you well, watch your back. The seemingly benign sentiment is a creative signature of Fox's public relations, usually accompanied by a kneecapping. It's something like a kiss from a Mafia don.Well, add disgruntled has-been LL Cool J to the list:
MSNBC host Keith Olbermann was the latest to visit the wishing well. When The New York Times recently asked Fox its opinion of Olbermann, who has repeatedly used Bill O'Reilly as a pinata on his nightly news countdown, spokeswoman Irena Briganti replied:
"Because of his personal demons, Keith has imploded everywhere he's worked. From lashing out at co-workers to personally attacking Bill O'Reilly and all things Fox, it's obvious Keith is a train wreck waiting to happen. And like all train wrecks, people might tune in out of morbid curiosity, but they eventually tune out, as evidenced by Keith's recent ratings decline. In the meantime, we hope he enjoys his paranoid view from the bottom of the ratings ladder and wish him well on his inevitable trip to oblivion."...
The list of people to get Fox News Channel's best wishes in print lengthens all the time. Here are some others:
_Ted Turner. The CNN founder called Fox a "propaganda voice" of the Bush administration and compared its popularity to Adolf Hitler's rise in Germany before World War II. Briganti: "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind. We wish him well."...
_George Clooney. Fox News branched out to Hollywood after the actor criticized O'Reilly. "We are disappointed that George has chosen to hurt Mr. O'Reilly's family in order to promote his movie," Schur said. "But it's obvious he needs publicity considering his recent string of failures. We wish him well in his struggle to regain relevancy."...
_Jonathan Klein. On the day the CNN U.S. president was hired, Briganti offered: "We wish CNN well in their annual executive shuffle." She later stuck the knife in further with: "We wish Jon well in his battle for second place with MSNBC."...
Each line is a counter-punch, Lewis noted. Fox doesn't "go nuclear" unless provoked. And he doesn't want the lines to lose impact by overdoing it.
LL Cool J, star of "NCIS: Los Angeles," tweeted Tuesday night: "Fox lifted an old interview I gave in 2008 to someone else & are misrepresenting to the public in order to promote Sarah Palins Show. WOW."
When contacted by Yahoo! News for comment, Fox News provided us with a statement:
"Real American Stories features uplifting tales about overcoming adversity and we believe Mr. Smith's interview fit that criteria. However, as it appears that Mr. Smith does not want to be associated with a program that could serve as an inspiration to others, we are cutting his interview from the special and wish him the best with his fledgling acting career."
La La La We Can't Hear You!
More specifically...the press can't remember these. But John Hawkins does...and now so do you:
"A spoiled child (Bush) is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little b*stard. [audio of gun being cocked]." -- A "humor bit" from the Randi Rhodes Show...
"..And then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq 'We have our good days and our bad days.' We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days' and pull the trigger." -- From a fundraising ad put out by the St. Petersburg Democratic Club...
"F*** God D*mned Joe the God D*mned Motherf*cking plumber! I want Motherf*cking Joe the plumber dead." -- Liberal talk show host Charles Karel Bouley on the air.
"Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm." -- The Village Voice's Michael Feingold, in a theater review of all places...
"You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?" -- Chris Matthews...
"Drudge? Aw, Drudge, somebody ought to wrap a strong Republican entrail around his neck and hoist him up about six feet in the air and watch him bounce." -- Liberal radio host, Mike Malloy
Something's Missing...
It's almost as if all the headlines about the terrorist murders in Russia are missing something...some vital piece of information...especially with all the hyperbolic "Christian militia group planned attacks!" headlines we've been seeing...
Hmmm...what's missing from headlines like this: Putin: Same militants may have organized new suicide blasts
Hmmm...what could it be...see if you can figure it out:
Hmmm...what's missing from headlines like this: Putin: Same militants may have organized new suicide blasts
Hmmm...what could it be...see if you can figure it out:
A Chechen militant leader has claimed responsibility for twin suicide bombings on Moscow's subway that killed 39 and wounded scores of others.What do you think it could be?
Doku Umarov, who leads Islamic militants in Chechnya and nearby regions of Russia's North Caucasus, says in a statement posted on a pro-rebel Web site that the attacks were an act of revenge for the killing of civilians by Russian security forces...
Wednesday's blasts struck in Dagestan, one of the provinces in Russia's volatile North Caucasus that have been destabilized by near-daily bombings and other raids by Islamic militants...
The subway bombings in Moscow were first suicide attacks in the Russian capital in six years and shocked a country that had grown accustomed to having such violence confined to its restive southern corner. They followed a warning from an Islamic militant leader that the militants would bring their struggle to the heart of Russia.
Can Anyone Explain?
Seriously, can anyone explain to me what this story is about?
Obama clears way for oil drilling off US coasts
Obama clears way for oil drilling off US coasts
Reversing a ban on oil drilling off most U.S. shores, President Barack Obama on Wednesday announced an expansive new policy that could put new oil and natural gas platforms in waters along the southern Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and part of Alaska...I am 100% serious here...can anyone with decent knowledge of the topic explain this to the rest of us? What I see is a story about 'Obama lifting a ban on offshore fossil fuel exploration'. But then I see that Bush lifted the ban in 2008. And then I see that in at least one location Obama is actually enacting a ban. Am I missing something? I must be, but I'm not seeing what or where it could be.
The plan modifies a ban that for more than 20 years has limited drilling along coastal areas other than the Gulf of Mexico. It allows new oil drilling off Virginia's shoreline and considers it for a large chunk of the Atlantic seaboard...
In addition, the Interior Department has prepared a plan to add drilling platforms in the eastern Gulf of Mexico if Congress allows that moratorium to expire. Lawmakers in 2008 allowed a similar moratorium to expire; at the time President George W. Bush lifted the ban, which opened the door to Obama's change in policy...
At the same time, the president also announced that proposed leases in Alaska's Bristol Bay would be canceled. And the Interior Department is reversing last year's decision to open up parts of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Instead, scientists would study the sites to see if they're suitable to future leases...
"The Science Is Settled"
Yeah. Right. Even the NY Times isn't buying it anymore, not even on page A1:
I like this part: "that skeptics say show that climate scientists had tried to suppress data"
Really? Just skeptics say that? So, in other words, true believers don't think that openly saying that you don't want to comply with freedom of information requests, have destroyed data, will destroy data, are requesting others to destroy records, and that you will suppress research that you don't like is "suppress(ing) data". Wow, wonder what the weather's like on that planet.
The debate over global warming has created predictable adversaries, pitting environmentalists against industry and coal-state Democrats against coastal liberals.Yup, sounds like consensus to me.
But it has also created tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially those who serve as television weather forecasters.
Climatologists, who study weather patterns over time, almost universally endorse the view that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to climate change. There is less of a consensus among meteorologists, who predict short-term weather patterns.
Joe Bastardi, for example, a senior forecaster and meteorologist with AccuWeather, maintains that it is more likely that the planet is cooling, and he distrusts the data put forward by climate scientists as evidence for rising global temperatures...
Such skepticism appears to be widespread among TV forecasters, about half of whom have a degree in meteorology. A study released on Monday by researchers at George Mason University and the University of Texas at Austin found that only about half of the 571 television weathercasters surveyed believed that global warming was occurring and fewer than a third believed that climate change was “caused mostly by human activities.”
More than a quarter of the weathercasters in the survey agreed with the statement “Global warming is a scam,” the researchers found.
The split between climate scientists and meteorologists is gaining attention in political and academic circles because polls show that public skepticism about global warming is increasing...
The dissent has been heightened by recent challenges to climate science, including the discovery of errors in the 2007 report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the unauthorized release of e-mail messages from a British climate research center last fall that skeptics say show that climate scientists had tried to suppress data...
A version of this article appeared in print on March 30, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.
I like this part: "that skeptics say show that climate scientists had tried to suppress data"
Really? Just skeptics say that? So, in other words, true believers don't think that openly saying that you don't want to comply with freedom of information requests, have destroyed data, will destroy data, are requesting others to destroy records, and that you will suppress research that you don't like is "suppress(ing) data". Wow, wonder what the weather's like on that planet.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Phony Arguments, Counterarguments, And Phony Responses
Phony Argument: If government doesn't control health care costs, if they leave it up to greedy free market participants, costs will quickly soar beyond the reach of everyday people. Government MUST take the reins and dictate costs, the free market cannot be trusted.
Counterargument: What about laser eye surgery? It's not covered by government programs or most health plans. Consequently costs almost always come right out of someone's pocket. As a result, laser eye centers have sprung up all over America. Competing businesses trumpet their costs as being better than the other places. They brag about how many treatments they've done and their success rate. They offer guarantees so that you can come back and get a touch up if the first treatment doesn't quite get you where they told you you should be, vision wise. They tell you how much easier your recovery will be with their method vs. the other places. Costs have come down dramatically over time. People freely cross state or even international boundaries to find the best price, the best doctors. Since they're paying they can go wherever they want for the treatment.
Isn't laser eye surgery an example of how the medical market could work if freed from government domineering and dictating? Lower prices, increased competition, increased choice, better results? The prices are open and not hidden by biweekly contributions, profits drive practitioners to improve their product and take customers from their competitors, while at the same time the free market keeps profits at a point no higher than the market can bear because otherwise someone could just open a new clinic and charge a bit less, leaving the other guy with no business, or profit, at all.
Phony Response: Yeah, but without government control these places will just collude together and let the price go up over time until not everyone can afford it or some unclean, unsafe clinic will open up and mangle people because they're charging next-to-nothing for some crooked person with outdated equipment to fix them up!
Response: Half right. No one, well, no one reasonable, is arguing for a complete removal of the government from their oversight duties to protect the public. There are already laws in place to keep businesses from artificially inflating their prices together. And that is only necessary where, for some reason, a new competitor is kept from entering the market and stealing customers away with lower prices. And the government, at the state and local level, via their health departments would and should be responsible for ensuring that minimum standards of cleanliness, safety, and performance are in place or the place would and should be put out of business. It is eminently wise to have health related businesses regulated by government (again, preferably state or better yet local) agencies in a way that is not necessary for lawyers or hair stylists or, heaven help us - florists. If you buy a poorly-assembled bouquet of flowers because the display on the shelf looks good, it won't kill you. Shoddy medical care is best detected by experts.
As for being priced out of the market, this happens all the time. Houses, cars, even televisions. Should health care be different? Perhaps. Poorer people cannot afford the biggest houses, the fanciest cars, the latest televisions. Yet the free market has more-than-adequately filled the gap - housing is available for those that cannot afford mansions. Cars are available for around $10,000 - sure they're not the latest BMW, but they get you where you need to go - and even nicer cars the free market makes available by allowing individuals and businesses to sell used vehicles for rock bottom prices. Just because you can't afford the latest LG megaset doesn't mean you can't pop into WalMart and buy some sort of TV that will let you watch Obama's latest speech on every channel. The free market provides luxury for those that can afford it and, well, adequacy for those that can't. They make money selling Jaguars to the boss. And they add to their bank account by selling used Hyundais to the loading dock worker. But isn't health care different? Should it be? Maybe laser eye surgery clinic A charges quite a bit more than clinic B. Clinic A is in a nicer neighborhood, has more staff so their wait times are a bit shorter, has comfier chairs, better magazines in the waiting room, and TVs to watch while you wait. B isn't quite so glamorous. One receptionist and fewer treatment rooms so the wait is longer. No magazines or TV, just a radio playing Obama's latest speech over and over...or maybe it's a new one every time, it's hard to keep track. But in both cases the clinics would and should meet a minimum standard of care and safety so that you know you are getting what you pay for, safely, even if you are 'pampered' more at the place that charges more. And if the boss wants to save money by going to clinic B or the loading dock worker wants to save up for a year to go to clinic A...they can.
***
Simply put, there is no reason not to unleash the free market on health care and health insurance. None. And the government must continue its role guaranteeing a basic level of safety and honest business practices that we expect and desire.
Counterargument: What about laser eye surgery? It's not covered by government programs or most health plans. Consequently costs almost always come right out of someone's pocket. As a result, laser eye centers have sprung up all over America. Competing businesses trumpet their costs as being better than the other places. They brag about how many treatments they've done and their success rate. They offer guarantees so that you can come back and get a touch up if the first treatment doesn't quite get you where they told you you should be, vision wise. They tell you how much easier your recovery will be with their method vs. the other places. Costs have come down dramatically over time. People freely cross state or even international boundaries to find the best price, the best doctors. Since they're paying they can go wherever they want for the treatment.
Isn't laser eye surgery an example of how the medical market could work if freed from government domineering and dictating? Lower prices, increased competition, increased choice, better results? The prices are open and not hidden by biweekly contributions, profits drive practitioners to improve their product and take customers from their competitors, while at the same time the free market keeps profits at a point no higher than the market can bear because otherwise someone could just open a new clinic and charge a bit less, leaving the other guy with no business, or profit, at all.
Phony Response: Yeah, but without government control these places will just collude together and let the price go up over time until not everyone can afford it or some unclean, unsafe clinic will open up and mangle people because they're charging next-to-nothing for some crooked person with outdated equipment to fix them up!
Response: Half right. No one, well, no one reasonable, is arguing for a complete removal of the government from their oversight duties to protect the public. There are already laws in place to keep businesses from artificially inflating their prices together. And that is only necessary where, for some reason, a new competitor is kept from entering the market and stealing customers away with lower prices. And the government, at the state and local level, via their health departments would and should be responsible for ensuring that minimum standards of cleanliness, safety, and performance are in place or the place would and should be put out of business. It is eminently wise to have health related businesses regulated by government (again, preferably state or better yet local) agencies in a way that is not necessary for lawyers or hair stylists or, heaven help us - florists. If you buy a poorly-assembled bouquet of flowers because the display on the shelf looks good, it won't kill you. Shoddy medical care is best detected by experts.
As for being priced out of the market, this happens all the time. Houses, cars, even televisions. Should health care be different? Perhaps. Poorer people cannot afford the biggest houses, the fanciest cars, the latest televisions. Yet the free market has more-than-adequately filled the gap - housing is available for those that cannot afford mansions. Cars are available for around $10,000 - sure they're not the latest BMW, but they get you where you need to go - and even nicer cars the free market makes available by allowing individuals and businesses to sell used vehicles for rock bottom prices. Just because you can't afford the latest LG megaset doesn't mean you can't pop into WalMart and buy some sort of TV that will let you watch Obama's latest speech on every channel. The free market provides luxury for those that can afford it and, well, adequacy for those that can't. They make money selling Jaguars to the boss. And they add to their bank account by selling used Hyundais to the loading dock worker. But isn't health care different? Should it be? Maybe laser eye surgery clinic A charges quite a bit more than clinic B. Clinic A is in a nicer neighborhood, has more staff so their wait times are a bit shorter, has comfier chairs, better magazines in the waiting room, and TVs to watch while you wait. B isn't quite so glamorous. One receptionist and fewer treatment rooms so the wait is longer. No magazines or TV, just a radio playing Obama's latest speech over and over...or maybe it's a new one every time, it's hard to keep track. But in both cases the clinics would and should meet a minimum standard of care and safety so that you know you are getting what you pay for, safely, even if you are 'pampered' more at the place that charges more. And if the boss wants to save money by going to clinic B or the loading dock worker wants to save up for a year to go to clinic A...they can.
***
Simply put, there is no reason not to unleash the free market on health care and health insurance. None. And the government must continue its role guaranteeing a basic level of safety and honest business practices that we expect and desire.
editoriaLIES
February 25th Times Union: TIME TO ACT ON HEALTH CARE
The issue:
Republicans head into today's health care summit showing no sign of wanting to compromise.
Lie #1 - The Republicans showed EVERY sign of wanting to compromise. They presented alternative plans, they presented amendments, the begged the President to meet with them. Their plans were summarily dismissed - Democrats went so far as to tell the GOP to give them a plan that could be posted on the White House website...when such a plan had been there for a year. Their amendments ALL were defeated by Democrat party-line votes where not a single Democrat chose to compromise by including a Republican idea in the bill. The single, solitary time the President agreed to meet with Republicans he spent the majority of time lecturing them and not listening to them, he had already put out his own plan, and the plan that he signed was the Senate bill written with no Republican input and well before any meeting took place. This is a flat out lie, the Republicans have done nothing but try to compromise while the Democrats have refused to even talk to Republicans.
The stakes:
An issue as critical as health care reform can no longer be held hostage.
Lie #2 - Held hostage? By whom? The Republicans have ineffectual minorities in each house and a socialist Democrat sits in the White House. The GOP, as we have seen, was unable to stop this monstrosity even with zero defections on their side and some from the Democrats. The implication is that the GOP has "held hostage" the nationalization of health care. This is a flat out lie.
The Republicans continue to deride health care reform, inaccurately, as "a government takeover," and reduce meaningful debate to inflammatory sound bites.
Lie #3 - The government, as this is fully implemented, would decide what a doctor could treat, who could practice medicine, what kind of insurance you could be offered, and what you could be charged for it. In what way, exactly, is that not a "government takeover"? The answer, for it's a simple one, is 'in no way' - therefore saying that the claim is 'inaccurate' is an easily disproven lie.
They continue to profess wanting to preserve "the best health care system in the world" -- a health care system that is bankrupting the country, that leaves tens of millions of people without access to affordable care, that has insurance companies unabashedly trying to get away with rate increases of 30, 40, even 50 percent or more, on the heels of profits that would make a Wall Street banker envious.
Lie #4 - In 2007, the average health insurer profit margin was 3%. Claiming would make a "Wall Street banker envious" goes beyond hyperbole, it is a flat out lie intended to assist the Democrats' demagoguery. More recently the number is "3.4% — placing them 88th of 215 industries in Morningstar rankings". Warren Buffett wouldn't be blushing over that.
Americans did not put Mr. Obama in the White House and give the Democrats control of Congress only to have their promises thwarted by the very party whose policies voters rejected. Promises like health care that, despite claims to the contrary, polls show Americans still support.
Americans did not put Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm mmm in the White House to thumb his nose at their wishes. Despite Lie #5, polls have shown time and again for months and months that Americans do NOT support this plan, even if they support some kind of reform (perhaps even the kind of reform the GOP has been advocating).
And, with a bill in place, who knows? Maybe Republicans would, for a change, be motivated to collaborate and compromise, rather than jeer from the sidelines.
Finally, Lie #6 - See above, the GOP has been offering alternate plans and amendments for months, a far, FAR cry from simply "jeering from the sidelines"...and if they ARE on the sidelines, it is simply because the Democrats, by refusing to compromise and act in a bipartisan manner, have not let them get in the game...or even in the stadium.
6 lies, easily proven and beyond refute.
The issue:
Republicans head into today's health care summit showing no sign of wanting to compromise.
Lie #1 - The Republicans showed EVERY sign of wanting to compromise. They presented alternative plans, they presented amendments, the begged the President to meet with them. Their plans were summarily dismissed - Democrats went so far as to tell the GOP to give them a plan that could be posted on the White House website...when such a plan had been there for a year. Their amendments ALL were defeated by Democrat party-line votes where not a single Democrat chose to compromise by including a Republican idea in the bill. The single, solitary time the President agreed to meet with Republicans he spent the majority of time lecturing them and not listening to them, he had already put out his own plan, and the plan that he signed was the Senate bill written with no Republican input and well before any meeting took place. This is a flat out lie, the Republicans have done nothing but try to compromise while the Democrats have refused to even talk to Republicans.
The stakes:
An issue as critical as health care reform can no longer be held hostage.
Lie #2 - Held hostage? By whom? The Republicans have ineffectual minorities in each house and a socialist Democrat sits in the White House. The GOP, as we have seen, was unable to stop this monstrosity even with zero defections on their side and some from the Democrats. The implication is that the GOP has "held hostage" the nationalization of health care. This is a flat out lie.
The Republicans continue to deride health care reform, inaccurately, as "a government takeover," and reduce meaningful debate to inflammatory sound bites.
Lie #3 - The government, as this is fully implemented, would decide what a doctor could treat, who could practice medicine, what kind of insurance you could be offered, and what you could be charged for it. In what way, exactly, is that not a "government takeover"? The answer, for it's a simple one, is 'in no way' - therefore saying that the claim is 'inaccurate' is an easily disproven lie.
They continue to profess wanting to preserve "the best health care system in the world" -- a health care system that is bankrupting the country, that leaves tens of millions of people without access to affordable care, that has insurance companies unabashedly trying to get away with rate increases of 30, 40, even 50 percent or more, on the heels of profits that would make a Wall Street banker envious.
Lie #4 - In 2007, the average health insurer profit margin was 3%. Claiming would make a "Wall Street banker envious" goes beyond hyperbole, it is a flat out lie intended to assist the Democrats' demagoguery. More recently the number is "3.4% — placing them 88th of 215 industries in Morningstar rankings". Warren Buffett wouldn't be blushing over that.
Americans did not put Mr. Obama in the White House and give the Democrats control of Congress only to have their promises thwarted by the very party whose policies voters rejected. Promises like health care that, despite claims to the contrary, polls show Americans still support.
Americans did not put Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm mmm in the White House to thumb his nose at their wishes. Despite Lie #5, polls have shown time and again for months and months that Americans do NOT support this plan, even if they support some kind of reform (perhaps even the kind of reform the GOP has been advocating).
And, with a bill in place, who knows? Maybe Republicans would, for a change, be motivated to collaborate and compromise, rather than jeer from the sidelines.
Finally, Lie #6 - See above, the GOP has been offering alternate plans and amendments for months, a far, FAR cry from simply "jeering from the sidelines"...and if they ARE on the sidelines, it is simply because the Democrats, by refusing to compromise and act in a bipartisan manner, have not let them get in the game...or even in the stadium.
6 lies, easily proven and beyond refute.
Add Biden To List Of Democrats Admitting Obamacare Is Socialism
Though he doesn't want to come right out and say that:
“It’s a simple proposition to us: Everyone is entitled to adequate medical health care,” Biden says. “If you call that a ‘redistribution of income’ — well, so be it. I don’t call it that. I call it just being fair — giving the middle class taxpayers an even break that the wealthy have been getting.”...No word on whether he thinks this plan, that he thinks will reduce middle class taxes, will make the middle class less patriotic.
“Taxes have been lowered for the wealthy considerably over the years,” he says. “It’s about time we get a little tax equity here.”
Financial Planning
So times have been tough, haven't they? Income's down...expenses are up. Hard to meet all those utility bills, grocery bills, credit card bills, mortgage...
Look. It's about time we stop all the fussin' and the feudin' and take the Democrats' advice.
What you need to do to get things under control is to get a new mortgage and buy a new house! Now, don't get me wrong, you're going to need to do some trimming. For example, have the cable cut off to your other house that you're still paying huge mortgage payments on. Go ahead and turn the thermostat down to about 55 in that house. Cancel the newspaper subscription. You won't need that, you can get one for your new house. Better, yet, go ahead and rent that other house with a $1700/month mortgage out for $950 a month to up your income!
There, problem solved!
Look. It's about time we stop all the fussin' and the feudin' and take the Democrats' advice.
What you need to do to get things under control is to get a new mortgage and buy a new house! Now, don't get me wrong, you're going to need to do some trimming. For example, have the cable cut off to your other house that you're still paying huge mortgage payments on. Go ahead and turn the thermostat down to about 55 in that house. Cancel the newspaper subscription. You won't need that, you can get one for your new house. Better, yet, go ahead and rent that other house with a $1700/month mortgage out for $950 a month to up your income!
There, problem solved!
In Case You Were Thinking The Left Was Being Dishonest About This Militia Thing...
not to worry...they were and are.
Lest you be swayed by their tender croonings about Sarah Palin whipping up the unwashed masses to strike down Democrats and especially black politicians, lest you think there may be a kernal of truth in their claims that American anger over health care takeovers prompted this bunch of loonies to plot murder...
think again.
And we'll see if they get the same 'benefit of the doubt' and sob story treatment that the press has given to the muslim groups 'training for jihad' that have been busted over the past few years. Yup, we'll hold our breath for that.
Lest you be swayed by their tender croonings about Sarah Palin whipping up the unwashed masses to strike down Democrats and especially black politicians, lest you think there may be a kernal of truth in their claims that American anger over health care takeovers prompted this bunch of loonies to plot murder...
think again.
FBI agents moved quickly against Hutaree because its members were planning an attack sometime in April, prosecutors said. Members had been undergoing paramilitary training, including learning how to shoot guns and make bombs, since 2008, according to an indictment.I guess they didn't like Bush, either.
And we'll see if they get the same 'benefit of the doubt' and sob story treatment that the press has given to the muslim groups 'training for jihad' that have been busted over the past few years. Yup, we'll hold our breath for that.
Down The Rabbit Hole
(sorry, Mr. Carroll)
Dear Editorial writers - please read before making yourselves continue to look foolish by claiming this monstrosity is popular and Republicans will be in trouble by talking about getting rid of this:
"The time has come,' the Falze said,I don't think we're in Kansas anymore:
"To talk of many things:
Of show trials -- and pinkslips -- and sealing up Henry Waxman's piehole --
Of cabbage heads -- and presidents-who-would-be-kings..."
Rep. Henry Waxman vowed to haul CEOs into hearings after they revealed just how much ObamaCare will cost their firms. It's an absurd war on bookkeeping, from a Congress desperate to avoid heat for this fiasco...More Than Half of Americans Disapprove of New Health Care Law, Says CNN Poll
In legally mandated filings, AT&T reported that ObamaCare will cost it $1 billion. Deere & Co. reported $150 million in new costs. Caterpillar must cough up $100 million. 3M must pay another $90 million. AK Steel gets to fork over $31 million. Valero Energy will pay $30 million. There'll be more as other companies report anticipated costs to fulfill their requirements to inform shareholders...
Instead of admitting the economic reality voters and companies have been warning Congress about, and maybe offering to read the bill next time, Waxman seeks to blame the very businesses the Democrats have just victimized...
The Chamber of Commerce's assessments of the impact on companies were dismissed in favor of MoveOn.org's hysterical "analysis" howling for socialized health care. And the bill passed.
Now it's time to pay the piper, and Waxman doesn't want to pay.
He has decided to haul the executives into yet another round of star chamber hearings to explain just why two and two make four.
This is an implied threat to companies either to cook their books or face legal or political sanctions for embarrassing Congress by revealing the true impact of its health care bill on the private sector.
Dear Editorial writers - please read before making yourselves continue to look foolish by claiming this monstrosity is popular and Republicans will be in trouble by talking about getting rid of this:
A new CNN poll shows that a majority of Americans, 56 percent, disapprove of the new health care law while 42 percent approve.
Also, 53 percent of those polled were either “displeased” or “angry” at the passage of the bill, while only 45 percent were “enthusiastic” or “pleased.”
The Hypocrisy Of The Left
Just take a step back and remember this: People actually listen to what this guy says!
EXHIBIT A
Jesse Jackson: Threats of Violence Against Public Officials Cannot Be Tolerated
Jesse Jackson in 2008 (at the time Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm mmm was a US Senator, a public official):
1984, Jesse Jackson goes after Jews, calling them "hymies" and calling New York City "Hymietown".
EXHIBIT D
FBI makes arrest in threat on GOP congressional leader
Make of these what you will.
EXHIBIT A
Jesse Jackson: Threats of Violence Against Public Officials Cannot Be Tolerated
Congressional leaders and objective news sources must be immediately and unequivocally denounce the escalation of threats and the inciting of violence against public officials and their offices. Acts of violence are inexcusable and are federal crimes, and cannot be tolerated in a democratic society. We call on the federal, state and local law enforcement officials to take appropriate action.EXHIBIT B
Jesse Jackson in 2008 (at the time Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm mmm was a US Senator, a public official):
"I wanna cut (Obama)'s nuts off!"EXHIBIT C
1984, Jesse Jackson goes after Jews, calling them "hymies" and calling New York City "Hymietown".
EXHIBIT D
FBI makes arrest in threat on GOP congressional leader
The office of Rep. Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican who is his party's No. 2-ranking House leader, has confirmed reports that a man has been arrested for making threats on the lawmaker's life...
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the suspect in custody is a Philadelphia man who made anti-Semitic threats against the congressman. Cantor is Jewish.
Make of these what you will.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Meet Obama's New Climate Czar
In fact, this guy might replace Rahm Emanuel, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and even Michelle Obama in the White House once Obama finds out about him!
Seriously, though, I don't know anyone could consider this guy a "respected...thinker". He both denounces fabricators of evidence, but embraces their conclusions. He both embraces more reasonable plans to deal with climate change the must accompany our retreat from an ice age, but says an example could be a "return" of the Great Depression Dust Bowl - either that was created by global warming (that went away) or would be caused by the same thing that caused it before (that I won't get into here) that isn't global warming. Sounds more like someone that's all over the map instead of a big time "thinker". I mean, anyone that takes in prodigious amounts of data (as I presume he does) and comes to the conclusion that it's all correct, even the contradictory stuff, just isn't thinking all that seriously about it, if you ask me.
Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory...Gotta love a "respected...thinker" that can look at fudged data that he sees as a mortal sin and still conclude that the problem is so severe that democracy itself must be shut down so that our betters can 'fix the earth' for us dummies. He makes Rahm "don't let a crisis go to waste" look like a piker!
One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is "modern democracy", he added. "Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."...
"That would be the sort of event that would change public opinion," he said. "Or a return of the dust bowl in the mid-west..."
"Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science," he said. "I'm not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do. You've got to have standards."
Seriously, though, I don't know anyone could consider this guy a "respected...thinker". He both denounces fabricators of evidence, but embraces their conclusions. He both embraces more reasonable plans to deal with climate change the must accompany our retreat from an ice age, but says an example could be a "return" of the Great Depression Dust Bowl - either that was created by global warming (that went away) or would be caused by the same thing that caused it before (that I won't get into here) that isn't global warming. Sounds more like someone that's all over the map instead of a big time "thinker". I mean, anyone that takes in prodigious amounts of data (as I presume he does) and comes to the conclusion that it's all correct, even the contradictory stuff, just isn't thinking all that seriously about it, if you ask me.
Do As We Say, Not As We Do
Nice piece here from Power Line as John fishes out some fishy business from the liberal memory hole before it can be forgotten:
...We talked about this on our radio show today, and several callers reminded us of a particularly sorry episode of liberal violence that, for some reason, has not gotten much attention: the 2008 Republican convention in St. Paul.
I attended the convention and remember the terrorist acts that were carried out by anti-Republican protesters very well. They threw bricks through the windows of buses, sending elderly convention delegates to the hospital. They dropped bags of sand off highway overpasses onto vehicles below. Fortunately, no one was killed.
These were anti-Bush and anti-Republican protesters. Is it a stretch to think that some of them, at least, may have been inspired by over-the-top, hateful attacks on the Bush administration by Democratic Congressmen, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Michael Moore, who was a guest of honor at the Democrats' own convention, various show business personalities, and many other leading liberal figures? I don't think so...
Yet, hardly anyone seems to be aware of the violence that took place in 2008. At most, the story was treated with a ho-hum attitude in the press. For some reason, political violence was not a concern less than two years ago. Yet today, we can hardly imagine what would happen if a group of tea partiers were to drop sandbags off a highway overpass, trying to kill motorists below. Liberal reporters' heads would explode. But this is exactly what anti-Republican Party protesters did in 2008, and no one cared. To my knowledge, not a single Democratic politician condemned this anti-Republican violence or attempted in any way to distance the Democratic Party from it.
Egads!
File under: credit where credit is due...even if it probably got someone fired:
MSNBC Shocker: Firearms Deaths Fall As Gun Restrictions Ease
Yes, MSNBC actually put together a story showing that 'shall issue' concealed carry laws spreading correlated with a reduction in firearm killings.
Wow.
MSNBC Shocker: Firearms Deaths Fall As Gun Restrictions Ease
Yes, MSNBC actually put together a story showing that 'shall issue' concealed carry laws spreading correlated with a reduction in firearm killings.
Wow.
Prepare For Obama Taking More Credit For Bush's Moves
First it was Iraq - Obama tried to take credit for ending the war in Iraq after Bush's moves won it (those would be the moves vehemently opposed and denigrated by Obama) and a settlement was already put together with the Iraqis to withdraw. Now it's going to be Citi - mark my words...
Treasury says it will begin selling Citi shares
You'll also recall that this plan was mocked by many, left and right, when it was claimed that the government could come out ahead on this type of deal. Yet even a hardcore freemarketer like Larry Kudlow was pointing out that it could go down this way and the market even approved. Why you may have seen that right on this very blog! Smart reader!
The Sky Isn't Falling, September 2008 - Quoting Larry Kudlow:
So, there you go...plans planned and set in motion months before Obey-Won was in office set the stage for this profitable (thought still distasteful) action - but I put the odds on Obama and/or the press crediting him for it around 97%.
Treasury says it will begin selling Citi shares
The Treasury Department said Monday it will begin selling the stake it owns in Citigroup Inc., which could result in a profit to the government of about $7.5 billion.Don't let things like "in 2008" throw you off, nor the fact that Obama didn't take office until 2009, no, 'facts' like that won't stop Obama from taking credit for this. Just look at the comments on Yahoo...the Obamaphiles are already crediting him for this. Just as they didn't know that the Democrats controlled Congress from 2006-2008 they clearly have no clue that Bush was president in 2008.
The government received 7.7 billion shares of Citigroup in exchange for $25 billion it gave the bank during the 2008 credit crisis. It said it will sell the shares over the course of this year, depending on market conditions...
The government has been trying to unravel the investments in made in banks under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that came in at the height of the financial crisis. Citi, one of the hardest hit banks during the credit crisis and recession, received a total of $45 billion in bailout money, one of the largest rescues in the program. Of the $45 billion, $25 billion was converted to the government's ownership stake in the bank...
New York-based Citi repaid the other $20 billion it owed the government in December.
You'll also recall that this plan was mocked by many, left and right, when it was claimed that the government could come out ahead on this type of deal. Yet even a hardcore freemarketer like Larry Kudlow was pointing out that it could go down this way and the market even approved. Why you may have seen that right on this very blog! Smart reader!
The Sky Isn't Falling, September 2008 - Quoting Larry Kudlow:
A gathering consensus also seems to be forming around a new version of the Resolution Trust Corporation, which effectively disposed of bad savings-and-loan assets in the early 1990s. A new RTC could purchase underwater assets that proliferate through the financial system and are clogging the credit and loan arteries of our banks.Primer On Bailing, September 2008 - Again, Mr. Kudlow:
We clearly are in an emergency moment. But the government should opt for smart regulatory action rather than broad-based interference that could stifle the free economy. On Thursday afternoon, as rumors spread that Paulson was talking President Bush into a new RTC, the stock market soared 400 points. That’s what I call an endorsement...
The single-biggest mistake in the Paulson bank-rescue-plan marketing effort has been the failure to explain clearly how taxpayers are going to recoup $700 billion used to buy toxic assets at auction in order to unfreeze the banking system. In other words, folks don’t understand how taxpayers will be paid back, and may actually make profits, which will enable the new government debt to be erased after the Treasury bank-rescue is completed...The Joke's On...All Of Us?, November 2008 - Him again:
Let’s walk through this hypothetical for a moment. Through a market-driven auction, the Treasury will purchase some dollar amount — say $100 billion — of loans that banks will sell. The Treasury will then buy those loans at the prices that fill the auction, starting with the lowest prices and working up. Now, the Treasury will hold those bonds either to maturity or for a sale in the open market if rising prices in the market make that sale attractive. In other words, suppose the Treasury buys a bond package at 20 cents on the dollar. They hold it for a while, and if market conditions improve, they sell it for 50 cents on the dollar to some buyer (e.g., an investment fund, a private-equity fund, a hedgie). The Treasury will make the sale at the higher price in order to gain a profit for taxpayers...
Markets also like the new super-TARP government plan to bailout Citigroup, which effectively guarantees the banking system with a massive insurance-like policy.(You can ignore the rest of that last post, please...Great Leader, once enthroned, has failed utterly to live up to any promise and his minions have been dutiful Debt-i Knights to Obey-Won instead of following their instincts, training, and past research.)
So, there you go...plans planned and set in motion months before Obey-Won was in office set the stage for this profitable (thought still distasteful) action - but I put the odds on Obama and/or the press crediting him for it around 97%.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Democrats Keep Saying ObamaCare IS Socialism
They're REALLY starting to cramp the media's style!
Howard Dean: Obamacare Is Redistribution of Wealth (Video)
Howard Dean: Obamacare Is Redistribution of Wealth (Video)
Republicans Rile Up More Violence Against...Republicans?
I tell you, the GOP just HAS to take a stand and stop calling for violence against themselves!
Breaking: Vandals Toss Bricks Through Windows at GOP Headquarters in Virginia
Breaking: Vandals Toss Bricks Through Windows at GOP Headquarters in Virginia
Gee, Look
Hey, look! Another conservative lie about the health care takeover:
Health overhaul likely to strain doctor shortage
Gee, it's almost as if a certain group of people (cough conservatives) have been saying this stuff FOR A YEAR!
Health overhaul likely to strain doctor shortage
Gee, it's almost as if a certain group of people (cough conservatives) have been saying this stuff FOR A YEAR!
CNN Flunks Basic Math
Check out this account of the rally held in Nevada headlined by Sarah Palin on CNN:
At least!
==
LA Times gets an F, too: "She also told the crowd estimated at about 8,000..."
Sadly, for them, the link they provide says:
CNN's Fredericka Whitfield: "Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin there in Searchlight, Nev., was the backyard of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, but today it's the backdrop of this Tea Party Express - making a stop here. Hundreds of people, at least dozens of people - we haven't gotten a count of how many people turned out there."Got that? "at least dozens of people".
At least!
==
LA Times gets an F, too: "She also told the crowd estimated at about 8,000..."
Sadly, for them, the link they provide says:
Speech pages rustling in a brisk breeze, Sarah Palin gazed Saturday across a sea of conservatives, perhaps 10,000 strong...Yeah, I bet it was some of the 10,000 Palin fans that egged her bus out of joy and respect.
The Searchlight spectacle will go down in Nevada history as one of the state's largest political gatherings. Las Vegas police put the crowd count at a conservative 8,000 by 1 p.m. just after Palin spoke, while organizers -- citing media reports and a security firm -- gave a broad crowd estimate ranging from 9,000 up to 30,000 on the 160-acre site.
With people coming and going throughout the day, it appeared the event met or exceeded predictions that at least 10,000 would make the Searchlight trek...
The only incident reported was by the Tea Party Express, which said its bus was egged by Reid supporters as it traveled through Searchlight a couple miles away from the rally.
Egg whites and yolks dripped from the bus's windshield wipers as the convoy arrived on site, but it wasn't possible to verify who threw the eggs...
A Biased "Analysis" - Now With More Lies!
This ludicrous bit of comedy is what the Times Union published on Tuesday after Obama signed the health care takeover into law - it's from Hearst:Q: Will the new law be seen as the most important social policy achievement of the past half-century or a major step toward a government takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy?
A: Both sides will try to frame the significance of the health-care overhaul. Democrats, working with their allies in the American Medical Association and seniors' groups, call it a major civil rights victory that gives patients and doctors more freedom. Republicans condemn it as a huge expansion of government...
Never mind that the actual seniors overwhelmingly opposed this monstrosity.
Q: Will health reform ending up costing us money or saving us money?
A: Democrats have some explaining to do here. The CNN poll found that four times as many Americans are convinced that their health-care costs will increase rather than go down. But Democrats can cite last week's report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that estimated a $143 billion savings over the next 10 years as a result of the Obama-backed plan. Republicans will focus on the new taxes contained in the bill, covering everything from tanning salons to high-income taxpayers.
Hmmm...something seems to be missing from this "analysis"...I know! The fact that Congress is going to have a pass a massive 'doc fix' this year to actually PAY doctors to treat those on government plans - a fix that will swamp the "savings" and turn it negative! What a waste of ink. It also helps to note that the CBO report SAID NO SUCH THING TO BEGIN WITH. But what's a few lies between comrades?
Q: Do the benefits kick in quickly enough?
A: Some liberals complain that the law's painful provisions kick in immediately, while many of the benefits are phased in over time.
EXCUSE ME?! "liberals" say this?? The liberals wrote this damned thing - it is CONSERVATIVES that have been making this point.
That's true, to a degree. It'll be four years before consumers with pre-existing medical conditions are protected, for example. But a number of benefits will take effect before Election Day: tax credits for small employers, a reduction in the so-called "doughnut hole" in Medicare drug coverage, a ban on lifetime limits in insurance coverage, creation of a high-risk insurance pool for individuals with pre-existing conditions and an end to insurance company cancellations of policies because consumers get sick.
And the mention of all the tax hikes going into effect right away? Hmmm...guess they 'forgot' to mention that.
q: Will Americans revolt against the bill's new mandates?
A: Adults will be required to buy health insurance. Companies with more than 50 employees will be required to provide insurance for workers or pay a fine. States like Texas will be required to pick up additional Medicaid costs to help insure low-income residents. Will voters see these as onerous federal requirements or acceptable contributions to a system that will insure more than 40 million additional Americans?
Ummm...they already are, dipstick, and they have been for a year now. It's a head-scratcher alright. And where did this new "more than 40 million" come from? 'Why look what I just found in my butt!'
Q: Did the opposition exaggerate or fabricate its case against health-care reform?
A: For the past year, Republicans have talked about "death panels" and evoked the specter of Stalinism and even Nazism as they tried to thwart Obama's health-care agenda...
Sigh. Death panels? They're in there. Nazism? That was the far-LEFT supporters of Lyndon Larouche. Oh, and the Democrats. They were the ones accusing everyday Americans of being like Nazis and un-American. You remember that, right, Mr. Newspaperman? Would you like to talk about exaggerations, Mr. 40+ Million?
Q: Does health reform help or hurt seniors?
A: Republicans are hammering Democrats for the bill's cost savings in Medicare, the government health program for elderly Americans.
Hmmm...if a Republican president signed a law cutting a half trillion dollars from Medicare - would that half trillion be called "cost savings"? I'm just asking...
Democrats say that they are simply squeezing waste out of the system...
Everyone knows this is baloney. Not a single analysis has come anywhere near close to that much in waste - even if you throw in fraud.
AARP, a lobbying group for older Americans, strongly backs the plan and will act as a blocking back for Democrats among seniors...
Seniors vehemently oppose the plan the left knows it. It got so bad that AARP stopped meeting with its members because of this and told them they couldn't make their concerns known.
Q: Was the process fair?
A: Over the past year, Republicans have scored political points when the public debate focused on the legislative process. The Cornhusker Kickback. The Louisiana Purchase. Gator-aid. Democrats have focused on individuals who would benefit from the changes rather than the sometimes-unseemly legislative sausage-making. This battle is likely to continue.
Ummm...A) you didn't answer the questions; 2) you didn't address the fact that Republicans WERE NOT ALLOWED ANY INPUT INTO THE PROCESS - something that just might affect the 'fairness' of the process...don't you think?
A: Both sides will try to frame the significance of the health-care overhaul. Democrats, working with their allies in the American Medical Association and seniors' groups, call it a major civil rights victory that gives patients and doctors more freedom. Republicans condemn it as a huge expansion of government...
Never mind that the actual seniors overwhelmingly opposed this monstrosity.
Q: Will health reform ending up costing us money or saving us money?
A: Democrats have some explaining to do here. The CNN poll found that four times as many Americans are convinced that their health-care costs will increase rather than go down. But Democrats can cite last week's report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that estimated a $143 billion savings over the next 10 years as a result of the Obama-backed plan. Republicans will focus on the new taxes contained in the bill, covering everything from tanning salons to high-income taxpayers.
Hmmm...something seems to be missing from this "analysis"...I know! The fact that Congress is going to have a pass a massive 'doc fix' this year to actually PAY doctors to treat those on government plans - a fix that will swamp the "savings" and turn it negative! What a waste of ink. It also helps to note that the CBO report SAID NO SUCH THING TO BEGIN WITH. But what's a few lies between comrades?
Q: Do the benefits kick in quickly enough?
A: Some liberals complain that the law's painful provisions kick in immediately, while many of the benefits are phased in over time.
EXCUSE ME?! "liberals" say this?? The liberals wrote this damned thing - it is CONSERVATIVES that have been making this point.
That's true, to a degree. It'll be four years before consumers with pre-existing medical conditions are protected, for example. But a number of benefits will take effect before Election Day: tax credits for small employers, a reduction in the so-called "doughnut hole" in Medicare drug coverage, a ban on lifetime limits in insurance coverage, creation of a high-risk insurance pool for individuals with pre-existing conditions and an end to insurance company cancellations of policies because consumers get sick.
And the mention of all the tax hikes going into effect right away? Hmmm...guess they 'forgot' to mention that.
q: Will Americans revolt against the bill's new mandates?
A: Adults will be required to buy health insurance. Companies with more than 50 employees will be required to provide insurance for workers or pay a fine. States like Texas will be required to pick up additional Medicaid costs to help insure low-income residents. Will voters see these as onerous federal requirements or acceptable contributions to a system that will insure more than 40 million additional Americans?
Ummm...they already are, dipstick, and they have been for a year now. It's a head-scratcher alright. And where did this new "more than 40 million" come from? 'Why look what I just found in my butt!'
Q: Did the opposition exaggerate or fabricate its case against health-care reform?
A: For the past year, Republicans have talked about "death panels" and evoked the specter of Stalinism and even Nazism as they tried to thwart Obama's health-care agenda...
Sigh. Death panels? They're in there. Nazism? That was the far-LEFT supporters of Lyndon Larouche. Oh, and the Democrats. They were the ones accusing everyday Americans of being like Nazis and un-American. You remember that, right, Mr. Newspaperman? Would you like to talk about exaggerations, Mr. 40+ Million?
Q: Does health reform help or hurt seniors?
A: Republicans are hammering Democrats for the bill's cost savings in Medicare, the government health program for elderly Americans.
Hmmm...if a Republican president signed a law cutting a half trillion dollars from Medicare - would that half trillion be called "cost savings"? I'm just asking...
Democrats say that they are simply squeezing waste out of the system...
Everyone knows this is baloney. Not a single analysis has come anywhere near close to that much in waste - even if you throw in fraud.
AARP, a lobbying group for older Americans, strongly backs the plan and will act as a blocking back for Democrats among seniors...
Seniors vehemently oppose the plan the left knows it. It got so bad that AARP stopped meeting with its members because of this and told them they couldn't make their concerns known.
Q: Was the process fair?
A: Over the past year, Republicans have scored political points when the public debate focused on the legislative process. The Cornhusker Kickback. The Louisiana Purchase. Gator-aid. Democrats have focused on individuals who would benefit from the changes rather than the sometimes-unseemly legislative sausage-making. This battle is likely to continue.
Ummm...A) you didn't answer the questions; 2) you didn't address the fact that Republicans WERE NOT ALLOWED ANY INPUT INTO THE PROCESS - something that just might affect the 'fairness' of the process...don't you think?
editoriaLIES
Well, let's see how the Times Union did on the day after 'the Constitution died' (Mar. 23)...the Gazetteers racked up, what? like 17 lies in their one editorial?
Finally, with a president and many Democrats willing to stake their political futures on the issue, no amount of obstructionism, political threats or outright lies stopped Congress from doing the right thing.
Lie #1 - abundant evidence came out before and after the vote that the Democrats, led by the liar in chief, have been lying their lying pants off...basically everything the right said about this monstrosity 'is in there'.
This bill, with amendments that the Senate is expected to pass soon, sends a message to tens of millions of people who until now had heard, "Sorry, you don't fit into the business model." The lives of 32 million people who don't have insurance will be better for it.
Lie #2 - as exhaustively cataloged on the rightweb, the number of uninsured that would probably like insurance is in the range of 5-10 million.
For those who do have coverage, this bill promises to hold down costs that were rising at a pace that threatened to make health care unaffordable.
Lie #3 - even Democrats acknowledge that this law will raise premiums and costs - unless they have figured out how to pay for more things at higher costs for less money.
Senior citizens will get more help with prescription drugs; eventually, the all-too-pleasantly nicknamed "doughnut hole" that forces many to spend thousands of their fixed-income dollars will be eliminated.
Lie #4 - except for all the retirees being kicked off their old employers' plans, which are generally more inclusive on drugs than Medicare, which they will now be forced onto.
Consider this: Today, in the richest country in the world, a sick child can be denied health coverage if an insurance company decides that boy or girl isn't profitable enough.
Lie #5 - in America everyone has access to health coverage, what they are not "entitled to" is health insurance, just as people with burning homes are not entitled to fire insurance.
Three months from now, that child's family will have access to an insurance program for high-risk people. The premiums will be subsidized, if necessary, for those who can't afford it.
Consider this a "good idea" that doesn't require the takeover of health care in America by the government.
In six months, the law will require insurers to cover all children, regardless of their health.
Every state in the nation already has programs to cover all children - a takeover of health care in America by the government isn't necessary to achieve something that already exists.
Congress and the President will need to be vigilant in the coming months and years, as the legislation is phased in, against attempts by the health care industry to squeeze individuals and businesses for every last dollar.
This, class, is called "demonization".
The GOP hopes to carry its yearlong campaign of stonewalling, disinformation and cries of a "government takeover" and "socialism" to the polls in November, and undoubtedly to the presidential race in 2012.
Lie #6 - "disinformation"? See above.
Six lies. Compared to the Gazette they were a model of restraint. Compared to someone telling the truth, well...
Finally, with a president and many Democrats willing to stake their political futures on the issue, no amount of obstructionism, political threats or outright lies stopped Congress from doing the right thing.
Lie #1 - abundant evidence came out before and after the vote that the Democrats, led by the liar in chief, have been lying their lying pants off...basically everything the right said about this monstrosity 'is in there'.
This bill, with amendments that the Senate is expected to pass soon, sends a message to tens of millions of people who until now had heard, "Sorry, you don't fit into the business model." The lives of 32 million people who don't have insurance will be better for it.
Lie #2 - as exhaustively cataloged on the rightweb, the number of uninsured that would probably like insurance is in the range of 5-10 million.
For those who do have coverage, this bill promises to hold down costs that were rising at a pace that threatened to make health care unaffordable.
Lie #3 - even Democrats acknowledge that this law will raise premiums and costs - unless they have figured out how to pay for more things at higher costs for less money.
Senior citizens will get more help with prescription drugs; eventually, the all-too-pleasantly nicknamed "doughnut hole" that forces many to spend thousands of their fixed-income dollars will be eliminated.
Lie #4 - except for all the retirees being kicked off their old employers' plans, which are generally more inclusive on drugs than Medicare, which they will now be forced onto.
Consider this: Today, in the richest country in the world, a sick child can be denied health coverage if an insurance company decides that boy or girl isn't profitable enough.
Lie #5 - in America everyone has access to health coverage, what they are not "entitled to" is health insurance, just as people with burning homes are not entitled to fire insurance.
Three months from now, that child's family will have access to an insurance program for high-risk people. The premiums will be subsidized, if necessary, for those who can't afford it.
Consider this a "good idea" that doesn't require the takeover of health care in America by the government.
In six months, the law will require insurers to cover all children, regardless of their health.
Every state in the nation already has programs to cover all children - a takeover of health care in America by the government isn't necessary to achieve something that already exists.
Congress and the President will need to be vigilant in the coming months and years, as the legislation is phased in, against attempts by the health care industry to squeeze individuals and businesses for every last dollar.
This, class, is called "demonization".
The GOP hopes to carry its yearlong campaign of stonewalling, disinformation and cries of a "government takeover" and "socialism" to the polls in November, and undoubtedly to the presidential race in 2012.
Lie #6 - "disinformation"? See above.
Six lies. Compared to the Gazette they were a model of restraint. Compared to someone telling the truth, well...
Lies Of The Lying Liar
We The People Losing Control Of Government
Demagogue also describes how President Obama revved up crowds as he crisscrossed the country selling his health legislation.Truth Is A Casualty Of The Final Push
"A big part of our campaign," he told audiences in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri, "was about changing the way Washington works — including the responsibility to live within its means. Over the last year, we've gone through the budget line-by-line looking for places to trim the fat out of government."
The truth is, as soon as he took office, the president signed bills that flooded the nation with new spending, resulting in a fiscal 2009 budget 19% above the previous year.
He also promised audiences that "for the first time, uninsured individuals and small businesses will have the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get."
That's not true. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, members of Congress "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country and can choose from health savings accounts, catastrophic plans with high deductibles, fee-for-service plans, preferred provider plans and HMOs."...
"All new insurance plans would be required to offer free preventive care to their customers," he pledged.
"Free" is a huckster's promise. In this case, there will be no co-pay or deductible for preventive services, but the cost of them is included in your premium. If you're buying your own insurance, it will cost 10% to 13% more if the bill is passed, according to the Congressional Budget Office (Nov. 30 report). That's the opposite of what the president claims.
"I want to give you more control over your health care," the president crooned.
But in fact, the Senate bill puts government in control of your care, even if you have Aetna, Cigna, Blue Cross or some other private plan. The bill bars doctors from participating in the private insurance system unless they implement whatever regulations the secretary of health and human services imposes (Senate bill, pp. 148-149)...
"Opponents have tried to scare people, especially seniors, into thinking that we are going after seniors' Medicare benefits. . .. (T)hat's just plain wrong."
In truth, the Senate bill reduces future Medicare funding by nearly $450 billion, including cuts in what hospitals will be paid to treat older patients. Experts are already warning that some hospitals will stop taking Medicare.
The president vowed that government has a "special responsibility to be wise stewards about how Americans' hard-earned tax dollars are spent." Grants to local community groups to offer positive self-esteem classes (Senate bill, p. 612) hardly fit that definition...
A congressman's brother was nominated to the federal judiciary, and a popular school-loan bill was inexplicably attached to the unpopular health bill...
Tired of waiting for the major media to take note, here's a small sampling of whoppers we took from the president's speeches last week in Ohio and Virginia, plus his interview with Fox News' Bret Baier:
• "We have incorporated the best ideas from Democrats and from Republicans." Far from it. Some of the biggest omissions include tort reform, health savings accounts, portable insurance, expanding consumer access to plans across state lines and posting provider prices for services so patients can shop around.
Republicans were almost completely shut out from the process and at the early stages last summer, were not even permitted to read the bill...
• ("This is not a) government takeover of health care." How is it that government can dictate to private insurance companies what they can offer, to whom, under what circumstances and at what prices, and yet still not own it?...
Even as Obama denied his health care plan was a government takeover, his vice president, Joe Biden, laid out the real deal: "You know we're going to control the insurance companies."...
• "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." That's if your doctor chooses to remain in the profession...
• "Our proposal is paid for ... our cost-cutting measures would reduce most people's premiums and bring down our deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next two decades." Government programs always cost more than projected. Medicare, which has $86 trillion in unfunded liabilities, was supposed to cost $10 billion within 25 years of its implementation. It actually cost $107 billion.
The real cost of the Democrats' reform plan, according to the Cato Institute, which isn't handcuffed in its estimates like the Congressional Budget Office, is $2.5 trillion over the first decade.
• "If this vote fails, then insurance companies will continue to run amok." They're not exactly wildcatting as it is. Health plan providers boast a profit margin of 3.4% — placing them 88th of 215 industries in Morningstar rankings. More than 2,000 state mandates dictate what coverages they provide.
• "By the time the vote has taken place ... you'll know what's in it because it's going to be posted and everybody's going to be able to evaluate it on the merits." The final bill wouldn't available to the public until Saturday morning, the day before the vote...So in fact, nobody would have time to digest the 2,500-page leviathan...
• "(This will be) the largest middle-class tax cut in the history of the country." Tax cut? New taxes on prescription drug sales, medical devices, tanning services and an annual tax on health insurers for being health insurers will all end up on middle-class shoulders...
• "$3,000 your employer doesn't have to pay ... maybe she can afford to give you a raise." Premiums will not go down, but way, way up. The Associated Press last week found that $3,000 to misrepresent a Business Roundtable analysis last year that "didn't consider specific legislation."...
Another IBD Roundup
Health Overhaul's Assault On Business
The heavy-equipment giant [Caterpillar] reckons its insurance costs will go up 20%, or $100 million, the first year after the health care system is overhauled, and may go even higher. Multiply that by literally tens of thousands of companies nationwide, large and small, and you can see how costs will soar...
Such claims don't hold water because health reform includes $569.2 billion in new taxes, at last count 160 new bureaucracies and regulations, and 16,500 new IRS agents to collect all those taxes. Tax hits on businesses and industries include:
• $52 billion on companies that do not provide what the government deems "acceptable" or "affordable" insurance for workers.
• $60.1 billion on health insurers.
• $27 billion on drugmakers and importers.
• $20 billion on makers and importers of medical devices.
• $2.7 billion on the tanning industry.
And of course the companies themselves don't pay. You do — both as a consumer, through higher prices, and as an employee, through lower wages.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Difference Between Them And Us
I've been meaning to get around to digging through the Gazette archives and doing a Fun With Numbers analysis of Dan DiNicola's columns. I suspected that what I was going to find is that the vast majority of his writing, when it wasn't about movies, was going to be the worst sort of ignorant, anti-conservative, far left wing smear-mongering.
But now Mr. DiNicola has passed away.
It just doesn't feel right to do that sort of thing now. Maybe someday I'll come back to it, because in the end it is a reflection of the paper that trumpeted his inclusion in their fold.
But not right now. At a time when people are still grieving over the loss of a loved one it doesn't seem right to take the opportunity to kick a person.
That's what the liberal media does whenever a conservative public figure dies, often right in the obituary they repeat the slanders, smears, and, often, lies that they smeared them with in life.
I won't do that.
But now Mr. DiNicola has passed away.
It just doesn't feel right to do that sort of thing now. Maybe someday I'll come back to it, because in the end it is a reflection of the paper that trumpeted his inclusion in their fold.
But not right now. At a time when people are still grieving over the loss of a loved one it doesn't seem right to take the opportunity to kick a person.
That's what the liberal media does whenever a conservative public figure dies, often right in the obituary they repeat the slanders, smears, and, often, lies that they smeared them with in life.
I won't do that.
GDP Revision
Apparently the "consensus" was that 4Q09 GDP would be revised up to 5.9. Instead it was unexpectedly revised down to 5.6.
In case you were keeping score at home.
In case you were keeping score at home.
Maybe They Should Have Read The Bill
I'm having trouble finding this as headline news...maybe when I get around to reading the papers it'll be screaming from the front page...you think?
It turns out that the health care bill (which the Democrats often referred to as a money maker and even a jobs bill) is going to cost big industries BILLIONS (good bye jobs) and also, by the way, eliminates a tax break that kept retirees on their employers' health plan...now they'll be dumped onto Medicare - yeah, that's a money saver.
AT&T plans $1 billion write-down tied to health law
It turns out that the health care bill (which the Democrats often referred to as a money maker and even a jobs bill) is going to cost big industries BILLIONS (good bye jobs) and also, by the way, eliminates a tax break that kept retirees on their employers' health plan...now they'll be dumped onto Medicare - yeah, that's a money saver.
AT&T plans $1 billion write-down tied to health law
AT&T on Friday said it will record a $1 billion non-cash expense in the first quarter related to the newly passed health-care law, joining a growing list of large U.S. companies.Yeah, unclear to have, what? millions of people dumped onto Medicare? I guess we'll need a supercomputer to figure out if about $1,500 might cover all of the average retirees drug costs.
The AT&T write-down is the largest reported so far. Caterpillar this week recorded a $100 million charge in the first quarter and Deere & Co. said it will report a one-time $150 million expense.
Among its many changes, the new health-care law eliminated a tax deduction that companies used to cut the cost of drug-benefit programs for retired workers. President Obama signed the massive health-care overhaul into law earlier this week in a big victory for ruling Democrats.
The health reform bill eliminated a subsidy for companies that operated as a double deduction. Companies such as John Deere and Caterpillar will face new costs up to $150 million, Ellen Schultz reports.
Yet companies that still offer retiree drug benefits, mostly older industrial concerns or those with unionized employees, say the end of the deduction could force them to alter their benefit plans. In other words, they might curtail or even cancel them...
Earlier this week, Verizon Communications sent a letter to employees suggesting that changes to their health-care plans could be afoot. AT&T and Verizon are the two largest phone companies in the U.S. and include a substantial number of unionized workers.
Several million retirees are estimated to receive drug benefits from a few thousand companies. If those retirees were shifted to the federal Medicare program, the government would [have] to pick up the expense. Whether savings from elimination of the subsidy would offset those higher Medicare costs is unclear...
Your Random Saturday
Michael Barone see deficits and tax hikes - from Democrats? Shocking!
Democrats have been focusing on the Congressional Budget Office's (preliminary) finding that it would reduce the federal deficit. But that's misleading because the CBO is required to assume that Congress won't increase the Medicare reimbursement rate for doctors (the doc fix) as it has done every year for a decade -- and as the Democratic leaders may be planning to do permanently later this year.
Over the last 40 years, federal government spending has hovered around 21 percent of the gross domestic product. The Obama budgets have pushed that up to 25 percent. The health care bill threatens to keep it in that vicinity indefinitely. And that, as the CBO has said, means deficits around 5 percent of GDP as far as the eye can see -- or higher taxes...
The bill begins the march to higher taxes. High earners will pay 3.8 percent more in Medicare tax, on top of a promised increase, from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, in their income tax rate. Economists of every ideological stripe agree that raising taxes in a recession will slow or prevent recovery. The bill also creates a 3.8 percent tax on interest and dividend income above certain levels beginning in 2013. That's another growth-killer.
Friday, March 26, 2010
NPR Takes Another Step To The Left
Courtesy of La Shawn Barber guestblogging for Michelle Malkin:
Our rights have expanded to include the right to health care and housing we can’t afford, the right of privacy to kill unborn babies, and the right to not be offended...
Mainstream media, take a memo, and frame all news stories this way:
* Refer to abortion supporters as “right to life opponents”
* Refer to gun control supporters as “gun rights opponents”
NPR was probably one of a few left-leaning mainstream media outlets using the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in abortion coverage...
Well, NPR caved to the pressure and decided to parrot other news organizations. From the NPR staff memo:
NPR News is revising the terms we use to describe people and groups involved in the abortion debate.Who wants to be against rights, right?...
This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible. This is important given that written text is such an integral part of our work.
On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion”, but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”.
Our rights have expanded to include the right to health care and housing we can’t afford, the right of privacy to kill unborn babies, and the right to not be offended...
Mainstream media, take a memo, and frame all news stories this way:
* Refer to abortion supporters as “right to life opponents”
* Refer to gun control supporters as “gun rights opponents”
Latest Pathetic Leftwing Media Fantasy - Voter Fury Over Obamacare Will HELP Dems
Yup, that's the latest story - that this pile of garbage furiously detested and opposed by the public will help Democrats.
It's just really not reality anymore. The mainstream media in America is now no better than government-run mouthpieces in communist regimes. The problem is that the peasants living under the Soviet thumb in the USSR didn't have the internet to get the facts...or FoxNews. As an added bonus, they continue to try to foist the debunked lies about the TEA party protesters and others. I hope, I really do, that a lot of the old school newspaper editors trudge through their day and then drag themselves to the bar at night to try to forget about what their industry has become. They try to relive their glory days when they "took down" Nixon...but that stuff actually happened. Nowadays if there is a real scandal regarding a Democrat they ignore it, support it, or suppress it. And they make up scandals about Republicans and conservatives. But they want you to keep buying their papers. What a surprise that a center-right nation continues to turn on FoxNews instead and tells the leftwing papers to go screw themselves.
Let's get out the shredder.
It's just really not reality anymore. The mainstream media in America is now no better than government-run mouthpieces in communist regimes. The problem is that the peasants living under the Soviet thumb in the USSR didn't have the internet to get the facts...or FoxNews. As an added bonus, they continue to try to foist the debunked lies about the TEA party protesters and others. I hope, I really do, that a lot of the old school newspaper editors trudge through their day and then drag themselves to the bar at night to try to forget about what their industry has become. They try to relive their glory days when they "took down" Nixon...but that stuff actually happened. Nowadays if there is a real scandal regarding a Democrat they ignore it, support it, or suppress it. And they make up scandals about Republicans and conservatives. But they want you to keep buying their papers. What a surprise that a center-right nation continues to turn on FoxNews instead and tells the leftwing papers to go screw themselves.
Let's get out the shredder.
Another Liberal Admits Health Care Takeover Is Socialism
This time it's the press itself, or a member thereof, that is admitting that the goal of the health care takeover is actually about income redistribution (aka socialism):
Wednesday's front-page “Economic Scene” column in the New York Times, “In the Process, Pushing Back At Inequality,” by Times economic guru David Leonhardt, fed conservative suspicions that Obama's push for health "reform" was not so much about improving health care as it was about social engineering. Leonhardt harped on how the legislation will give a boost to reducing U.S. income inequality (a burning issue for Leonhardt).See? It isn't conservatives making the argument that this is socialism...it's the liberals!
One-Sided Reporting - Now There's A Surprise
Not.
UPDATE:
It wasn't just GMA!
Nets Not So Excited About Violence and Threats Aimed at ObamaCare Opponents
Good Morning America's David Wright on Friday ominously warned that Sarah Palin's "tactics," which include encouraging conservatives to politically "reload" and putting cross-hairs over Democrats she wishes to see defeated, "may backfire." Wright vaguely explained that this was "after several congressmen received death threats this week."--
However, Wright didn't specifically mention that Republican Congressman Eric Cantor had a bullet shot through his office this week. He also ignored the threats received by GOP Representative Jean Schmidt. In fact, Good Morning America didn't cover these developments at all.
On Thursday, GMA eagerly played up violent warnings against Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak and reporter Pierre Thomas touted the party's fears that "all this angry talk could push a deranged person over the edge."
UPDATE:
It wasn't just GMA!
Nets Not So Excited About Violence and Threats Aimed at ObamaCare Opponents
An evening after all three broadcast network newscasts led by advancing the Democratic narrative of violent ObamaCare critics, a storyline intended to discredit conservatives as all gratuitously named Sarah Palin as a culprit, on Thursday night the same programs weren't so interested and only stumbled into the suddenly “bipartisan” victims – despite fresh revelations of threats and violence aimed at Republicans who voted no...GMA Highlights Threats Against Bart Stupak, Ignored 'Living Hell' Congressman Suffered Before Vote
Two stories later, only after reporter Kelly O'Donnell had noted that “just before the Senators cast their votes, they paused to honor the late Ted Kennedy,” did Williams arrive at the threats “reported by Democrats and Republicans.” Williams:We have more tonight on the threats that have come in against some members of Congress since this bill passed. Police and the FBI are looking into the e-mails, phone calls and vandalism that have been reported by Democrats and Republicans, some serious business.
Good Morning America's Pierre Thomas on Thursday played up the threats and intimidation that Bart Stupak has suffered since he voted for the health care bill. However, last week, the same program ignored the "living hell" the Congressman dealt with as he claimed to oppose the legislation.CNN Condemns Threats Against Pro-ObamaCare Reps, 'Death of a President' OK
Thomas played a voice mail released by Stupak where an anonymous caller attacked, "Congressman Stupak, you baby-killing mother [bleeped]. I hope you die." However, when George Stephanopoulos talked to Stupak on March 19, he skipped the Representative's complaints to The Hill that "All the phones are unplugged at our house — tired of the obscene calls and threats."
Are threats only notable when they can potentially be linked to those on the right?
On Thursday's American Morning, CNN's John Roberts repeatedly decried the "troubling language" against pro-ObamaCare congressman which "violate any sense of common decency." But his own program over three years earlier helped promote a controversial 2006 movie which forwarded an imaginary assassination attempt against then-President George W. Bush...CBS: Health Care Debate 'Gets Ugly,' GOP Using 'Violent Rhetoric and Imagery'
Despite these condemnations from the American Morning program in the present day against Democrats, they had not problem with devoting a four-minute segment to promoting director Gabriel Range's "Death of a President" and its hypothetical scenario where former Republican President Bush was assassinated. Then-anchor Miles O'Brien acted very mildly during the interview, and tossed softball questions to the director. Only once did O'Brien ask, "Do you think what you're doing is responsible? Does this inspire, perhaps, somebody who might wish to do harm to the President?"
At the top of Thursday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez proclaimed: "The health care debate gets ugly as Democrats who voted for reform report violence and death threats." In a report that followed, correspondent Nancy Cordes promoted left-wing talking points blaming the GOP: "Democrats accuse Republicans of stoking the anger with violent rhetoric and imagery."NYT's Hulse Passes Along Dems Points on Violent, Racist Protests, Even Cites Palin Facebook Page
As one example of the threats against Democrats, Cordes played phone messages left for Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak: "You and your family are scum....We think you're a devil....I hope you die." However, the Early Show failed to mention any of the threatening phone calls made to Stupak last week, by liberals upset over the pro-life Democrat still being on the fence over the abortion language in ObamaCare. As NewsBusters' Tim Graham pointed out, CBS's own Political Hotsheet blog reported: "Stupak...says his life has become a 'living hell' because of the debate....'All the phones are unplugged at our house – tired of the obscene calls and threats,' Stupak said in an interview with The Hill."...
Cordes also cited political analyst Reid Wilson from The Hotline blog, who claimed: "I don't think anybody's seen this level of anger for quite a long time. We saw an anger on the left at President Bush and the Republican Congress, especially around the war in Iraq, but nothing to this level." In reality, vile language and threats of violence were common place at anti-war rallies in the Bush years...
CBS spent no time detailing the threats against Republican Senator Jim Bunning in early March, when he held up passage of a spending bill.
Rodriguez went on to claim: "Some Republicans, though, have played this down, saying that this, unfortunately, comes with the territory. When you make a controversial decision, this is par for the course." She did not attribute those comments to any specific Republican...
No Republicans were featured in the segment. The only GOP response to any of the accusations came in the form of Cordes mentioning: "Republican House Leader John Boehner has put out a paper statement denouncing some of these violent statements." She quickly added: "Democrats want him to do more. They say Republicans need to speak out to try to diffuse some of this anger." Congressional Republicans held a live press conference on Wednesday afternoon denouncing threats against Democrats, the least the Early Show could have done would have been to play a clip of it.
In the lead story of Thursday's National section, New York Times congressional correspondent...Carl Hulse quickly put the Times' stamp of approval on Democrat attempts to discredit anti-Obama-care protesters as violent racists in “After Health Vote, Democrats Are Threatened With Violence.” He even drug Internet images from the RNC and Sarah Palin into the mix. By contrast, the Times was conspicuously quiet during the 2004 presidential campaign concerning vandalism of G.O.P. campaign offices...The reports of threats, coming after a tense weekend when protesters hurled racial and homophobic slurs at Democrats and spit on one congressman, left many Democrats shaken.Actually, that “spit” description has been challenged, as the MRC's Tim Graham argued. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver complained of a man "who allowed saliva to hit my face," which sounds like unintentional spittle, not a conscious act of contempt.
And it does seem odd that over a long Capitol Hill weekend clogged with cameras and the media, how few of these apparent slurs were captured for posterity...
Glenn Reynolds at the Instapundit blog dredged up several stories from the media memory hole concerning vandalism of G.O.P. campaign offices during Bush's 2004 re-election drive, none of which appears to have received coverage in the New York Times, according to a Nexis search.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
More Lies
Once again, Senate Republican holds up jobless benefits
Once again, the media lies. Last time the only thing a Republican did was withhold 'unanimous consent' - all that Harry Reid had to do was call a vote and it would have passed...Harry Reid, not a Republican, held up jobless benefits. Now he's doing it again. Harry Reid. Democrat. Democrat Majority Leader. Harry Reid.
And, again, a Democrat holds up a bill that IS NOT PAID FOR.
And, again, the media drops their pants for the Democrats and lies their faces off.
F***ing pathetic.
--
MORE: Read the stories and see who is REALLY holding up benefits, here's a hint, it ain't the guy in the headlines!
Let's recap.
Democrats said, 'Can we all just agree to give away more money we don't have without getting the money from anywhere'?
Coburn said, 'No. Here's a bill that will pay for it, just like you said we should pay for our spending Democrats. This bill will extend the benefits.'
Democrats as a bloc voted against extending unemployment benefits.
Reid could simply call a vote on the measure, Democrats could then pass it by voting as a bloc.
Instead Reid and the Democrats decided to go on vacation.
Again - all they had to do was vote. The DEMOCRATS chose to not vote and go on vacation instead. After they, the DEMOCRATS, voted AGAINST a bill that would extend the unemployment benefits while not increasing the deficit.
So...who REALLY blocked the extension of unemployment benefits? Sen. Coburn and the GOP who proposed a bill that would extend the benefits and voted to extend the benefits? Or the donkeys who voted AGAINST a bill that would extend the benefits and NOT increase the deficit and chose to go on vacation instead of voting to extend benefits that WOULD increase the deficit?
It's not that complex, is it?
Once again, the media lies. Last time the only thing a Republican did was withhold 'unanimous consent' - all that Harry Reid had to do was call a vote and it would have passed...Harry Reid, not a Republican, held up jobless benefits. Now he's doing it again. Harry Reid. Democrat. Democrat Majority Leader. Harry Reid.
Once again, a stubborn Senate Republican is blocking speedy passage of a stopgap bill to extend jobless benefits, saying its $9 billion cost should not be added to the national debt.You might recall that the Democrats passed a LAW that says EVERY SPENDING BILL MUST BE PAID FOR.
This time it's Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who's insisting that the measure be "paid for" so as not to add to the nation's $12.7 trillion debt.
And, again, a Democrat holds up a bill that IS NOT PAID FOR.
And, again, the media drops their pants for the Democrats and lies their faces off.
F***ing pathetic.
--
MORE: Read the stories and see who is REALLY holding up benefits, here's a hint, it ain't the guy in the headlines!
At the center of the battle is Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who's insisting that the measure be "paid for" so as not to add to the nation's $12.7 trillion debt...If extending already extraordinarily long benefits to pay people for not working is an "emergency", then anything is an emergency.
Republicans offered legislation to finance the monthlong extension of jobless benefits by rescinding unspent money from last year's economic stimulus bill. The effort was killed on a party-line vote.
Democrats repeatedly sought speedy Senate approval of a House-passed measure that would extend jobless benefits through May 5, but Coburn objected...
Reid had the option of keeping the Senate in session to force a vote to try to break through the GOP blocking tactics but instead will revisit the issue in 2 1/2 weeks...
Democratic leaders say that jobless benefits are an emergency and don't need to conform to the new pay-as-you-go budget law...
Let's recap.
Democrats said, 'Can we all just agree to give away more money we don't have without getting the money from anywhere'?
Coburn said, 'No. Here's a bill that will pay for it, just like you said we should pay for our spending Democrats. This bill will extend the benefits.'
Democrats as a bloc voted against extending unemployment benefits.
Reid could simply call a vote on the measure, Democrats could then pass it by voting as a bloc.
Instead Reid and the Democrats decided to go on vacation.
Again - all they had to do was vote. The DEMOCRATS chose to not vote and go on vacation instead. After they, the DEMOCRATS, voted AGAINST a bill that would extend the unemployment benefits while not increasing the deficit.
So...who REALLY blocked the extension of unemployment benefits? Sen. Coburn and the GOP who proposed a bill that would extend the benefits and voted to extend the benefits? Or the donkeys who voted AGAINST a bill that would extend the benefits and NOT increase the deficit and chose to go on vacation instead of voting to extend benefits that WOULD increase the deficit?
It's not that complex, is it?
Another Democrat Admits Health Bill Is Socialism
Funny, the press keeps saying that conservatives are lying that the health care takeover is socialism...but Democrats keep saying that the point of the bill is wealth redistribution (aka socialism)!
Sen. Max Baucus (D): "Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."So, excuse me, Mr. Newspaper editorialist...but if income redistribution isn't socialism - then what the hell is??!!
It Continues...
Can anyone come up with a single reasonable argument for the press continuing to try to sell this bullspit story line as they have all week?
GOP risks sour grapes label with talk of health care law repeal
Risk with WHOM?
Not with the American people who are firmly behind them!
Poll: Most Want GOP to Keep Fighting on Health Bill
GOP risks sour grapes label with talk of health care law repeal
Risk with WHOM?
Not with the American people who are firmly behind them!
Poll: Most Want GOP to Keep Fighting on Health Bill
The poll finds that 62 percent want Congressional Republicans to keep challenging the bill, while 33 percent say they should not do so. Nearly nine in ten Republicans and two in three independents want the GOP to keep challenging. Even 41 percent of Democrats support continued challenges.Stop f**king lying to America to prop up this this twisted, corrupt, communist-loving regime!
It Continues...
On and on and on go the left wing media lies and half-truths...even as they run stories with headlines like "health care myths"...they don't tell you that the myths are actually what they are telling you:
Senate Republicans learned early Thursday that they will be able to kill language in a measure altering President Barack Obama's newly enacted health care overhaul, meaning the bill will have to return to the House for final congressional approval...All while SAVING money!! Free Brooklyn Bridges for everyone, too!
The development came as the Senate completed nine hours of uninterrupted voting on 29 GOP amendments to the legislation. Majority Democrats defeated every amendment.
The legislation would change the new health care law by making drug benefits for Medicare recipients more generous by gradually closing a gap in coverage, increasing tax subsidies to help low-income people afford health care, and boosting federal Medicaid payments to states...
As they began pushing the bill to passage on Wednesday afternoon, Democrats ran into a mountain of GOP amendments. Outnumbered and all but assured of defeat, Republicans forced votes on amendments aimed at reshaping the measure — or at least forcing Democrats to take votes that could be used against them in TV ads in the fall campaigns.Don't they realize that people aren't buying stuff like this anymore? "Culling savings from Medicare"? Puh-leeze! Is that how they would describe a half billion in CUTS from Medicare if Republicans did it? And we saw in a post last night just who would be affected by new taxes..."higher income people" that use tanning salons, that use flexible spending accounts, that suffer catastrophic medical events...you know...the evil RICH!
"There's no attempt to improve the bill. There's an attempt to destroy this bill," said an exasperated Reid, D-Nev.
"The majority leader may not think we're serious about changing the bill, but we'd like to change the bill, and with a little help from our friends on the other side we could improve the bill significantly," answered Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky...
By 57-42, Democrats rejected an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., barring federal purchases of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. Coburn said it would save millions, while Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., called it "a crass political stunt."
Democrats also deflected GOP amendments rolling back the health law's Medicare cuts; killing extra Medicaid funds for Tennessee and other state-specific spending; barring tax increases for families earning under $250,000; and requiring the president and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges the statute creates...
The $938 billion, 10-year price tag would be financed largely by culling savings from Medicare and imposing new taxes on higher income people and the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical device industries.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Can You Count How Many Times Obama Broke His Promise Not To Raise Taxes?
Here's a hint...it's a LOT. Please take note of just how wrong and despicable a few of these are...capping itemization for catastrophic medical bills? No more using FSAs for over-the-counter drugs? No more using pre-tax health contributions for special needs education?? That's just sick.
Obama to Sign Massive Tax Hike on Working Families in Violation of His Campaign Pledge
Obama to Sign Massive Tax Hike on Working Families in Violation of His Campaign Pledge
President Obamais about to break[broke] his central campaign promise: a “firm pledge” not to raise “any form” of taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year. The healthcare bill passed by the House and Senate contains seven taxes that unquestionably violate Obama’s pledge.
(Page numbers reference ORIGINAL REID-OBAMA BILL unless noted):
Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/Jan 2014*): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following (page 71 of manager’s amendment updates Reid bill)...
Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/Jan 2014*): Small business owners pay their business taxes on their personal 1040 forms. This tax does not exempt startup small business owners even if they make less than $250,000. If the employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees...
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans would no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14 bil/Jan 2011): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2011 (added on page 363 of manager’s amendment). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
Medical Itemized Deductions Cap (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction if the total cost of the expenses reduces the filer’s income by 7.5%. The new provision would impose a threshold of 10%. This new tax will most adversely affect early retirees and the catastrophically ill. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.
Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Page 373 of Manager’s amendment/$2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10% excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons
NONE OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS EXEMPTS FAMILIES MAKING LESS THAN $250,000
Being Alive = Engaging In Interstate Commerce
As far as I, and probably many conservatives (and I hope liberals and moderates!) are concerned, the federal government is dangerously close to, well, complete tyranny.
Whoa! Hold on there. I didn't say we're there, yet.
No, what I am referring to is the dangerous and unimaginable expansion of the 'interstate commerce clause' in the Constitution.
A brief and ugly reminder (that you may need to use when talking about the firestorm of protest expected to dominate the summer of 2010 with liberals) of what the Constitution does. The Constitution spells out certain duties of the federal government. The Bill of Rights, amendments made a part of the Constitution through ratification, describe what the federal government may not do. One more important thing to mention - the Constitution explicitly says that any power not granted explicitly to the federal government is a power reserved for states and the people of the USA.
One of the duties of the federal government is to regulate interstate commerce. This was a commonsense item - you have rules for commerce in one state and rules for commerce in another state that may not be the same. So the federal government was set to regulate the trade between them. A good idea. However, as time has passed the federal government has chosen to interpret this to mean that they can regulate damned near every aspect of our lives. Sadly the Supreme Court has actually upheld this bullspit. Far too often the people that are supposed to read the Constitution and see if it applies to or restricts a law find that what the Constitution says is not what it means. It has actually been found that someone doing something on their own property is "engaging in interstate commerce". This is a similarly asinine finding as the finding that when the Constitution says "public use" is really means "public welfare". There are no penumbras and permutations. Great and exhausting effort was put into this document, particularly in one area...constraining the federal government (due to their experience with the tyrannical British monarchy). For people of modern times to even consider the possibility that people like Madison really meant to allow vague penumbras and permutations that - nudge nudge wink wink - allow for the government to expand its power by distorting the plain and, well, obvious meaning of the powers it is granted is nauseating.
Just think about it. They are saying that these men that had just staked their lives and fortunes, and the same of the rest of the colonies, on escaping the unresponsive and tyrannical rule of one government intentionally wrote the news laws of their land to allow for the government they were creating to mimic the government from which they had just broken free. Or, at the very least, intended what they wrote to be so vague and flexible that it could be interpreted to do just that. Are you kidding me? They were killing people and being killed to do the exact opposite!
Which brings us to the precipice upon which the Democrats have forced us. When you take away all the details, all the plans, all the hollering the Democrats ruling America and passing laws that go against the wishes of the governed are saying one thing and one thing only - the power granted by the Constitution to the federal government to regulate commerce from one state to another actually grants the federal government the power to force American citizens to do ANYTHING they want.
It really is just that simple. Simply by being born into this world an American citizen the federal government is forcing you to buy something. And not just anything, but a product that they have designed and set the price of. A product that they do not allow competition for.
As they say in the infomercials - it's just that easy!
If this survives Constitutional challenge - in other words, if one man, one citizen out of 300 million, Kennedy, decides that this monstrosity is 'Constitutional', it sets a precedent for the federal government to dictate every aspect of your life. What you buy, what you wear, what you drive...everything. Now that's not to say they would, but it means that they could.
Personally I do not see the nation surviving that. A nation founded by men and women determined to break free from a tyrannical government is not a nation that can survive the government they founded becoming just another tyrant.
Yet this is exactly what the Democrats are choosing to do. This is thepath gangplank they are determined we walk - they are determined to make us believe that the power to regulate trade from one state to another is the power to force you to buy a product they dictate simply because you were born.
I guess it could be worse...they could say that the "good and welfare" clause of the Constitution is what gives them this power. The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House could tell us that the "good and welfare" clause makes this all cool.
Except of course there is no such thing.
Except John Conyers made that exact claim.
I think another committee needs a new chairman.
And what about this wacky statement (I say things like 'wacky' in an increasingly desperate attempt to avoid profanity) from Obama's Health Care Czar: "The Commerce Clause of the Constitution does say that people need to meet certain requirements. The requirement to have coverage is one of them." That's probably news to the founders...and anyone with a Constitution...because what it actually says is:
I honestly don't see how they can do anything except go after guns next.
--
UPDATE - apparently I'm not the only one thinking this way: link
Whoa! Hold on there. I didn't say we're there, yet.
No, what I am referring to is the dangerous and unimaginable expansion of the 'interstate commerce clause' in the Constitution.
A brief and ugly reminder (that you may need to use when talking about the firestorm of protest expected to dominate the summer of 2010 with liberals) of what the Constitution does. The Constitution spells out certain duties of the federal government. The Bill of Rights, amendments made a part of the Constitution through ratification, describe what the federal government may not do. One more important thing to mention - the Constitution explicitly says that any power not granted explicitly to the federal government is a power reserved for states and the people of the USA.
One of the duties of the federal government is to regulate interstate commerce. This was a commonsense item - you have rules for commerce in one state and rules for commerce in another state that may not be the same. So the federal government was set to regulate the trade between them. A good idea. However, as time has passed the federal government has chosen to interpret this to mean that they can regulate damned near every aspect of our lives. Sadly the Supreme Court has actually upheld this bullspit. Far too often the people that are supposed to read the Constitution and see if it applies to or restricts a law find that what the Constitution says is not what it means. It has actually been found that someone doing something on their own property is "engaging in interstate commerce". This is a similarly asinine finding as the finding that when the Constitution says "public use" is really means "public welfare". There are no penumbras and permutations. Great and exhausting effort was put into this document, particularly in one area...constraining the federal government (due to their experience with the tyrannical British monarchy). For people of modern times to even consider the possibility that people like Madison really meant to allow vague penumbras and permutations that - nudge nudge wink wink - allow for the government to expand its power by distorting the plain and, well, obvious meaning of the powers it is granted is nauseating.
Just think about it. They are saying that these men that had just staked their lives and fortunes, and the same of the rest of the colonies, on escaping the unresponsive and tyrannical rule of one government intentionally wrote the news laws of their land to allow for the government they were creating to mimic the government from which they had just broken free. Or, at the very least, intended what they wrote to be so vague and flexible that it could be interpreted to do just that. Are you kidding me? They were killing people and being killed to do the exact opposite!
Which brings us to the precipice upon which the Democrats have forced us. When you take away all the details, all the plans, all the hollering the Democrats ruling America and passing laws that go against the wishes of the governed are saying one thing and one thing only - the power granted by the Constitution to the federal government to regulate commerce from one state to another actually grants the federal government the power to force American citizens to do ANYTHING they want.
It really is just that simple. Simply by being born into this world an American citizen the federal government is forcing you to buy something. And not just anything, but a product that they have designed and set the price of. A product that they do not allow competition for.
As they say in the infomercials - it's just that easy!
If this survives Constitutional challenge - in other words, if one man, one citizen out of 300 million, Kennedy, decides that this monstrosity is 'Constitutional', it sets a precedent for the federal government to dictate every aspect of your life. What you buy, what you wear, what you drive...everything. Now that's not to say they would, but it means that they could.
Personally I do not see the nation surviving that. A nation founded by men and women determined to break free from a tyrannical government is not a nation that can survive the government they founded becoming just another tyrant.
Yet this is exactly what the Democrats are choosing to do. This is the
The Obama administration is not concerned about the pending cases, said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. He said the administration’s defense will be based on the regulation of interstate commerce...This is fantasyland. This is "there are no tanks in Baghdad". This is absolutely nutty. There has NEVER been a time when the government has forced US citizens to buy a particular product. Not ONCE. Why didn't they force people to buy war bonds? They instituted rationing days for things like sugar or meat during the war, but they didn't force you to eat those things to begin with (picture Bart Simpson taking up smoking so he can give it up). They don't force you to keep your money in a bank. They don't force you to drive a Government Motors car. But they can force you to buy their health insurance? They don't force you to go on Medicare (though they tax you to pay for others' plans). They don't force you to go on Medicaid. In fact quite a sizable number of the 'uninsured' are actually already eligible for public plans and simply don't sign up. A "longstanding precedent", you dope? If there were, these people would already be enrolled!
“A lot of big pieces of legislation are challenged in some ways,” Gibbs said Monday, adding that he believes some of the challenges will be on legal grounds “that I don’t think will be very successful.”
“Some of the states and some of the players are curious. But there is a pretty longstanding precedent on the constitutionality of this,” Gibbs said.
“The health care reform bill, with its insurance mandate, creates a conflict of laws between the federal government and Virginia,” Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said. “Normally, such conflicts are decided in favor of the federal government, but because we believe the federal law is unconstitutional, Virginia’s law should prevail.”A "novel issue"? But the White House assures us there is "longstanding precedent", does it not?
Cuccinelli believes the federal government will argue that its authority derives from its power to regulate interstate commerce.
“We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate,” Cuccinelli continued. “Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, there would be no limit to the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything we do. There has never been a point in our history where the federal government has been given the authority to require citizens to buy goods or services.”...
A July 24, 2009 report by the Congressional Research Service says, “Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.”
An August 1994 report by the Congressional Budget Office, issued when the Clinton administration was pursuing a health care overhaul, determined that the government had never ordered Americans to buy anything."never"? But the White House assures us there is "longstanding precedent", does it not?
I guess it could be worse...they could say that the "good and welfare" clause of the Constitution is what gives them this power. The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House could tell us that the "good and welfare" clause makes this all cool.
Except of course there is no such thing.
Except John Conyers made that exact claim.
Conyers said: “Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know -- I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know -- they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”...'Hey, I'm the chairman of the Judiciary committee y'all! So I know what I'm talking about with all the "good" clauses and such in the Constimawhatchimathingy.'
The CBO stated: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”
I think another committee needs a new chairman.
And what about this wacky statement (I say things like 'wacky' in an increasingly desperate attempt to avoid profanity) from Obama's Health Care Czar: "The Commerce Clause of the Constitution does say that people need to meet certain requirements. The requirement to have coverage is one of them." That's probably news to the founders...and anyone with a Constitution...because what it actually says is:
The Congress shall have Power...Yup. Nancy-Ann Deparle is dead on there...I think I see a penumbra where "regulate Commerce...among the several States" actually says, "you must buy health insurance". Yup. Sure thing. Just squint a little harder and you'll see where Obama's TOP health care person is saying that requiring health insurance is explicitly already in the Constitution. See, we were all just doing it wrong for the past 230 years or so. How silly we've been, breaking the law like that.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
I honestly don't see how they can do anything except go after guns next.
--
UPDATE - apparently I'm not the only one thinking this way: link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
