It’s ironical that Obama spoke the truth during his campaign for the presidency and once elected does not. No one listened then but many are listening now.
Obama told Americans what he believed both by the people with whom he associated and the policies he would follow as president. No one listened then but many are listening now.
First to be exposed was his association with the country-hating Reverend Wright on whose knee Obama sat for twenty years. Then we learned that Obama began his run for election at the home of left wing Weatherman terrorist William Ayres and his co-conspirator wife Bernadine Dohrn. [Note: Obama himself said you could judge a person by the company he keeps.]
As for his political beliefs, Obama famously admitted he would “spread the wealth” if elected. He also said he would enact Health Care “Reform.” The only thing he didn’t expressly say was that he would expand government and government control over our lives. Nonetheless this was also apparent to anyone who listened carefully, but once again, too many didn’t listen.
Obama started by instituting government takeovers of the banking system and the auto industry then focused attention on the one-sixth of the economy, the health care system. When the president and his far left Democrat followers ran into trouble enacting this part of the agenda, our president turned to his one sure thing to garner public support, his teleprompter.
Let’s take a look at his oration from Mount Capital; the famous Obama speech on the imperative need for Obamacare.
The president first reminded us about what a good job he did lifting the economy. He did this by saying “thanks to the bold and decisive action we've taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.” However while patting himself on the back, he failed to explain why under his watch and policies the unemployment rate far exceeds the 8% he promised and at 9.7% is heading to double digits.
Obama then turned his, and our, attention the health care.
“Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed and can't afford it since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."
"Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover.”
This mixture of half-truths is typical of Obama. What he failed to mention in his effort to mislead the public is that the uninsured “who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy” don’t have to spend a dime to get needed medical care because by law hospitals are required to care for these uninsured. This may not be the most economical way for taking care of uninsured but it does nonetheless address the problem.
Obama has alleged different numbers of uninsured as he tries to impress us with the calamity we face. Sometime the number of uninsured is 47 million but in his speech he said “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.” Those who really analyze this say that at most the number is 12 to 15 million uninsured while 135 million families do have some form of health insurance, and according to polls most are satisfied with their insurance and therefore don’t need “reform.”
Another of Obama’s misleading contentions is “Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages.” The fact is we are better off for our higher health care costs than countries like Canada and the U.K who have universal health care because deaths by prostate and breast cancer, for example, are significantly less.
The president would have us believe that Obamacare is supported by “an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses, hospitals, seniors' groups, and even drug companies.” But the truth is support is from the American Medical Association and only 17% of doctors are members of the AMA. Pharmaceutical companies are at various time demeaned and referred to as supporters of Obamacare but if the roles of insured are increased as Obama says they should be, it is obvious that there would be more business for the drug industry.
After Obama portends of coming doom if Obamacare is not made law, he accuses opponents of “scare tactics.”
“But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge.”
By the way, you are permitted to wonder if the health care situation is in such bad shape, why is it that Obamacare won’t come into effect for four years.
Another thing Obama likes to say if you have health insurance now you can keep it.
“First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the V.A., nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.”
But the public is wise to this half truth. If there is a “Public Option” (Government insurance option), it’s only a matter of time before private insurance becomes a thing of the past. Private companies can’t compete with the deep pockets of government which has no need of profit making.
Under Obamacare freedom of choice is so denied that participation is mandatory and anyone not participating in the program is deemed “irresponsible.” Furthermore, they MUST buy health insurance or they are fined. The IRS is made the enforcement arm of Obamacare.
“Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage."
"The problem is such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors.” “…businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in (i.e., be fined) to help cover the cost of their workers.”
“… we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees” – big brother says so.
Mr. President are you saying that everything that Americans do that adds to public costs should be government controlled? How about poor choices in eating habits that leads to obesity and/or illness, should that be under government edict? Slippery slopes lead to the bottom of individual freedom.
The president doesn’t stop at misleading statements, he can’t resist untruths.
“Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." This too is false. In fact the House bill on the table (H.R. 3200) does include illegal aliens.
“And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” Mr. President, read the bill, abortions are not excluded and every time Republicans submit legislation to omit illegal immigrant coverage and abortion coverage Democrats defeat them.
Sir Mr. President why is it that although every poll says Americans don’t want Obamacare you say: “... I believe a broad consensus exists …”? and -
“It's -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. "
Obama refuses to admit that Obamacare is government control of the health system but it is. Even Obama has publicly admitted the ultimate goal is nationalized medicine; here is what he said to mislead the public:
“Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a ‘government takeover’ of the entire health care system. Now, as proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly- sponsored insurance option, administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare.
So let me set the record straight here.
My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there's choice and competition. That's how the market works.”
It’s true the free markets work when people have choices but freedom of choice is not part of Obamacare; for example, a Federal Board and its Commissioner will decide who gets what medical care and who doesn’t get any needed health care – such as to prolong life. How does government decision making about medical treatment jibe with Obama's statement: “And -- and I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.”
The president thinks that there is a lack of competition among insurance companies and this wrong:
“Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company.”
But the answer is not government edict; it’s to let insurance companies compete across state lines.
Obama doesn't like profits. I guess he thinks private business should not profit from their enterprise but should operate for the benefit of the public, just communist countries do.
“But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities. Now, it is...”
“Overhead gets eaten up by profits” - profits are overhead Mr. President? If universities are good example of competition, why do tuitions keep escalating?
The president knows that many people think Obamacare is too expensive so he said:
“Now, Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future -- period. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promise don't materialize.”
The Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you Mr. President; they say Obamacare will cost $1.6 trillion. Sir, your nose is growing.
Among the most insidious aspects of Obamacare is what it will do to seniors, including those who rely on Medicare. First a new Federal Board will determine if particular medical treatment needed by seniors is “cost effective” or not and then Medicare money will be reduced but Obama refuses to admit it so he obfuscates the issue this way.
“…not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan. The only... The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies... . subsidies that do everything to pad their profits, but don't improve the care of seniors. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead."
Now, these steps will ensure that you -- America's seniors -- get the benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. “
“That's what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut -- especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past... and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will not happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.”
“Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. So the [Federal] commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system -- everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.”
Yes, government control of health care is sooo good – if you are lucky enough to be granted the right to it by the Federal Board.
President Obama and his teleprompter make good speeches – that’s what got him elected. He is relying on the same thing to sell Socialized Medicine – we shouldn’t let him get away with it – fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you.
.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The devil is in the details
The devil is in the details and nothing can be more devilish than having government bureaucrats decide whether you can or cannot receive needed health care.
While supporters and critics of Obama’s heath care “reform” argue about whether to have a “Government” (or “Public”) option, “Co-ops”, or a “Trigger” to activate the Public option, completely overlooked is the most insidious aspect of health care plans demanded by Obama and proposed by Democrats. Every one of these Democrat plans to change the health care system includes a "Government Health Care Board and Health Care Choices Commissioner" to dictate what and to which Americans medical care can be provided.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference in San Francisco on Thursday, Aug. 20, 2009, (CNSNews.com) that the health care bill (H.R. 3200) under consideration in the House of Representatives would give President Obama the authority to name a new federal “Health Choices Commissioner” who would have the power to dictate the health insurance plans offered in a so-called "exchange" where millions of Americans would get their health insurance if the bill is enacted.
These powers would include deciding which treatments are covered, which insurance companies can participate, which states can run their own health care plan, what medical care may or may not be provided to individuals on a cost effective basis and rules for enrolling individuals into the public insurance program.
The Bill calls for establishing a health insurance “exchange” where people earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level will be able to purchase health insurance with the help of federal subsidies or given to them at no cost. This exchange would include a "public option" government-run health care plan as well as private plans that provide a minimum benefits package dictated by the government.
The Health Choices Commissioner would establish “the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefit plans during each plan year,” according to page 84 of the 1,018-page bill. That means the Commissioner would determine what benefits the participating insurance companies must offer participating customers in the exchange, and also dictate what benefits or coverage cannot be made available. The commissioner would also set rules for insurance companies to participate in the health insurance exchange and establish criteria for individuals to receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance in the exchange, according to section 142 on page 42 of the legislation.
In addition the Commissioner would have the authority to establish “automatic enrollment” of individuals who qualify for the health insurance exchange:
“The Commissioner shall provide a process under which individuals who are Exchange-eligible individuals described in subparagraph (B) are automatically enrolled under an appropriate Exchange participating health benefits plan.” The legislation says, beginning on page 97: “Such process may involve a random assignment or some other form of assignment that takes into account the health care providers used by the individual involved or such other relevant factors as the Commissioner may specify.”
House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) expressed the views of many of us about giving one bureaucrat this much power over the health insurance and medical care of Americans and the fact that this is among the least noticed provisions of the legislation.
“The American people want two things from health care reform: lower costs and more choices,” Boehner said in a statement. “Yet Democrats have done exactly the opposite coming up with a bill that actually raises costs--increasing the deficit by $240 billion--and letting a new federal bureaucrat make health care decisions that should be left to patients and their doctors.”
The legislation also gives the commissioner sole power to determine who can participate and under what conditions.
“The Commissioner shall have the authority to establish such rules as may be necessary to deal with special situations with regard to uninsured individuals and employers participating as Exchange-eligible individuals and employers,” the bill says on page 82, “such as transitions periods for individuals and employers who gain or lose, Exchange-eligible participation status, and to establish grace periods for premium payment”
The Commissioner would also decide the “cost sharing” difference between each available plan, according to pages 85-87 of the legislation.
Supporters say the national exchange would not replace state Universal Health Care programs, such as the Commonwealth Connector in Massachusetts but this is not entirely true. State plans would only be approved if the state plan meets federal criteria set by the Commissioner. Otherwise, the commissioner could shut the state plans down.
“The Commissioner may terminate the approval (for some or all functions) of a State-based Health Insurance Exchange,” the legislation says on page 114. Page 112 of the legislation says a state plan “must demonstrate the capacity to provide assurances satisfactory to the Commissioner that the State-based Health Insurance Exchange will carry out the function specified for the Health Insurance Exchange in the State (or States) involved.”
The health care “reformation” contemplates making insurance coverage available to some 45 million or so alleged uninsured which is certainly an idealistic result that satisfies our altruistic better nature but at the cost of ruining health care now enjoyed by the 135 million families and individuals who are happy with their existing insurance coverage. The Democrat proposals also fail to deal with the obvious shortage of medical care providers needed to treat the increased number of people insured. This in itself would necessarily lead to delays in medical treatment which, like in Canada and the UK, can be fatal.
Furthermore, concern for the cost of the Democrat universal health care plans has injected the concept of “cost effectiveness” in the decision making by the "Health Choices Commissioner” and the national board as they dictate who can receive needed health care and what treatments are covered and available to a particular individual on a cost effective basis. It does not take a genius to realize this means providing treatment to seniors is not as cost effective as providing such treatment to younger people. Giving power to make such decisions to government bureaucrats and a single Commissioner amounts to allowing them to decide who lives or dies.
This is the ultimate in government control sought by Marxist/Socialists.
While supporters and critics of Obama’s heath care “reform” argue about whether to have a “Government” (or “Public”) option, “Co-ops”, or a “Trigger” to activate the Public option, completely overlooked is the most insidious aspect of health care plans demanded by Obama and proposed by Democrats. Every one of these Democrat plans to change the health care system includes a "Government Health Care Board and Health Care Choices Commissioner" to dictate what and to which Americans medical care can be provided.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference in San Francisco on Thursday, Aug. 20, 2009, (CNSNews.com) that the health care bill (H.R. 3200) under consideration in the House of Representatives would give President Obama the authority to name a new federal “Health Choices Commissioner” who would have the power to dictate the health insurance plans offered in a so-called "exchange" where millions of Americans would get their health insurance if the bill is enacted.
These powers would include deciding which treatments are covered, which insurance companies can participate, which states can run their own health care plan, what medical care may or may not be provided to individuals on a cost effective basis and rules for enrolling individuals into the public insurance program.
The Bill calls for establishing a health insurance “exchange” where people earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level will be able to purchase health insurance with the help of federal subsidies or given to them at no cost. This exchange would include a "public option" government-run health care plan as well as private plans that provide a minimum benefits package dictated by the government.
The Health Choices Commissioner would establish “the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefit plans during each plan year,” according to page 84 of the 1,018-page bill. That means the Commissioner would determine what benefits the participating insurance companies must offer participating customers in the exchange, and also dictate what benefits or coverage cannot be made available. The commissioner would also set rules for insurance companies to participate in the health insurance exchange and establish criteria for individuals to receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance in the exchange, according to section 142 on page 42 of the legislation.
In addition the Commissioner would have the authority to establish “automatic enrollment” of individuals who qualify for the health insurance exchange:
“The Commissioner shall provide a process under which individuals who are Exchange-eligible individuals described in subparagraph (B) are automatically enrolled under an appropriate Exchange participating health benefits plan.” The legislation says, beginning on page 97: “Such process may involve a random assignment or some other form of assignment that takes into account the health care providers used by the individual involved or such other relevant factors as the Commissioner may specify.”
House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) expressed the views of many of us about giving one bureaucrat this much power over the health insurance and medical care of Americans and the fact that this is among the least noticed provisions of the legislation.
“The American people want two things from health care reform: lower costs and more choices,” Boehner said in a statement. “Yet Democrats have done exactly the opposite coming up with a bill that actually raises costs--increasing the deficit by $240 billion--and letting a new federal bureaucrat make health care decisions that should be left to patients and their doctors.”
The legislation also gives the commissioner sole power to determine who can participate and under what conditions.
“The Commissioner shall have the authority to establish such rules as may be necessary to deal with special situations with regard to uninsured individuals and employers participating as Exchange-eligible individuals and employers,” the bill says on page 82, “such as transitions periods for individuals and employers who gain or lose, Exchange-eligible participation status, and to establish grace periods for premium payment”
The Commissioner would also decide the “cost sharing” difference between each available plan, according to pages 85-87 of the legislation.
Supporters say the national exchange would not replace state Universal Health Care programs, such as the Commonwealth Connector in Massachusetts but this is not entirely true. State plans would only be approved if the state plan meets federal criteria set by the Commissioner. Otherwise, the commissioner could shut the state plans down.
“The Commissioner may terminate the approval (for some or all functions) of a State-based Health Insurance Exchange,” the legislation says on page 114. Page 112 of the legislation says a state plan “must demonstrate the capacity to provide assurances satisfactory to the Commissioner that the State-based Health Insurance Exchange will carry out the function specified for the Health Insurance Exchange in the State (or States) involved.”
The health care “reformation” contemplates making insurance coverage available to some 45 million or so alleged uninsured which is certainly an idealistic result that satisfies our altruistic better nature but at the cost of ruining health care now enjoyed by the 135 million families and individuals who are happy with their existing insurance coverage. The Democrat proposals also fail to deal with the obvious shortage of medical care providers needed to treat the increased number of people insured. This in itself would necessarily lead to delays in medical treatment which, like in Canada and the UK, can be fatal.
Furthermore, concern for the cost of the Democrat universal health care plans has injected the concept of “cost effectiveness” in the decision making by the "Health Choices Commissioner” and the national board as they dictate who can receive needed health care and what treatments are covered and available to a particular individual on a cost effective basis. It does not take a genius to realize this means providing treatment to seniors is not as cost effective as providing such treatment to younger people. Giving power to make such decisions to government bureaucrats and a single Commissioner amounts to allowing them to decide who lives or dies.
This is the ultimate in government control sought by Marxist/Socialists.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Democrats and Obama must think Republicans are idiots but they are only partially right
Having failed to sell the “co-op” option as a substitute for the “government option,” Obamacare fanatics are now pushing the “trigger” option. Of course, any thinking Republican (which excludes Olympia Snowe) sees right through this scheme.
This new proposal to help Democrats pass Obamacare is submitted by no other than Senator Olympia Snowe, (R-Maine), with whom Republicans can do without. The so-called "trigger" plan has been suggested by Snowe who is a member of the "gang of six" Senate negotiators who are trying to broker a bipartisan compromise. Under such an option, if agreed-upon goals are not met by the insurance industry, then that would pull the trigger on government-run insurance; thus keeping a government-run insurance plan on reserve. Liberals complain “the trigger would likely prevent a public option from ever being implemented. Conservatives complain, to the contrary, that it would act as a surefire public option -- only several years down the road.” (Fox News) The liberals’ complaint is specious because in the end they will accept anything that can be represented as “bipartisan health care reform.”
"If you say to the government bureaucracy, 'As long as you find it has failed, you get to build a brand-new bureaucracy,' you have a guarantee the trigger's going to go into effect. I mean, you're only delaying for four years what will become a 100-year problem," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said recently.
Howard Dean also voiced opposition:
"The problem is it won't work. It doesn't add anything. If you're going to do that, just do the insurance reform. So you know, I'm very hopeful that (Obama) will stick to his guns and that we'll have the reform we were promised in the campaign. If, for whatever reason, he chooses to go in a different direction, then I'd scale back the bill. I wouldn't spend five cents on it."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday acknowledged talks over the trigger option and seemed to speak approvingly of it. But hours later, she issued a statement reaffirming her commitment to a "strong public option." Dean suggested an all-or-nothing approach, urging Obama to "stay the course" on a public option.
"If you don't use your majorities, you lose your majorities," Dean said.
Very disheartening to conservatives is the apparent potential support for health care reform advocated by some Republicans. Senator Lamar Alexander, (R-Tenn.), and Gingrich suggested the administration take a more incremental approach to reform. Alexander said Obama should declare to the American people on Wednesday that it's time to "start over." It’s not clear what exactly Alexander means by his “incremental” comment but there are so many things wrong with any version of Obamacare out there that any suggestion to go with an incremental approach may still leave us without the health insurance coverage most Americans have now and favor.
For example, unless the appointed government board that decides who can receive health care on a cost effective basis, and what medical care can be given, is deleted, many Americans will be denied life-extending medical care. Furthermore the problem of more people insured than available medical care providers to render medical care will necessarily lead to rationing and long waits for service.
There are some issues about health insurance that likely should be addressed but they don’t need 1,000 pages to describe. Such things as coverage for pre-existing conditions and insurance portability are good candidates for reform but will likely increase not decrease insurance cost. On the other hand allowing insurance companies to compete nationally by removing state border limitations will decrease insurance costs. Furthermore the 47 or 50 million uninsured in the country used to garner support for “health care reform” is totally bogus as explained many times by writers addressing this subject. The truth is that there are probably 15 million or less unable to afford health insurance, although these people are not denied health care under the law. There are simple and less expensive ways to provide them with health insurance if indeed that is the goal and not expanding government and government control.
Right now we have the ridiculously entitled “earned income tax credit” which is not a credit at all but out-and-out government welfare checks given to people who pay no taxes. It would be far less costly and less damaging to our health care system to simply enroll these people in a private health insurance plan.
The huge backlash to all the proposed health care reform bills does not sway any of the dedicated socialists in congress nor the chief socialist in the White House because they don’t care what the public thinks or wants. As good socialists they know what’s best for us and by God they will give that to us come hell or high water. But the secret behind their dedication is that it is expanded government control they want (with them in charge) and not improving the country.
Obama is about to make a national speech about what he calls health care reform. You can be certain he will say all the right things as he always does but he won’t change his objective of government control of this one-sixth of our economy no matter how he wraps it.
This new proposal to help Democrats pass Obamacare is submitted by no other than Senator Olympia Snowe, (R-Maine), with whom Republicans can do without. The so-called "trigger" plan has been suggested by Snowe who is a member of the "gang of six" Senate negotiators who are trying to broker a bipartisan compromise. Under such an option, if agreed-upon goals are not met by the insurance industry, then that would pull the trigger on government-run insurance; thus keeping a government-run insurance plan on reserve. Liberals complain “the trigger would likely prevent a public option from ever being implemented. Conservatives complain, to the contrary, that it would act as a surefire public option -- only several years down the road.” (Fox News) The liberals’ complaint is specious because in the end they will accept anything that can be represented as “bipartisan health care reform.”
"If you say to the government bureaucracy, 'As long as you find it has failed, you get to build a brand-new bureaucracy,' you have a guarantee the trigger's going to go into effect. I mean, you're only delaying for four years what will become a 100-year problem," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said recently.
Howard Dean also voiced opposition:
"The problem is it won't work. It doesn't add anything. If you're going to do that, just do the insurance reform. So you know, I'm very hopeful that (Obama) will stick to his guns and that we'll have the reform we were promised in the campaign. If, for whatever reason, he chooses to go in a different direction, then I'd scale back the bill. I wouldn't spend five cents on it."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday acknowledged talks over the trigger option and seemed to speak approvingly of it. But hours later, she issued a statement reaffirming her commitment to a "strong public option." Dean suggested an all-or-nothing approach, urging Obama to "stay the course" on a public option.
"If you don't use your majorities, you lose your majorities," Dean said.
Very disheartening to conservatives is the apparent potential support for health care reform advocated by some Republicans. Senator Lamar Alexander, (R-Tenn.), and Gingrich suggested the administration take a more incremental approach to reform. Alexander said Obama should declare to the American people on Wednesday that it's time to "start over." It’s not clear what exactly Alexander means by his “incremental” comment but there are so many things wrong with any version of Obamacare out there that any suggestion to go with an incremental approach may still leave us without the health insurance coverage most Americans have now and favor.
For example, unless the appointed government board that decides who can receive health care on a cost effective basis, and what medical care can be given, is deleted, many Americans will be denied life-extending medical care. Furthermore the problem of more people insured than available medical care providers to render medical care will necessarily lead to rationing and long waits for service.
There are some issues about health insurance that likely should be addressed but they don’t need 1,000 pages to describe. Such things as coverage for pre-existing conditions and insurance portability are good candidates for reform but will likely increase not decrease insurance cost. On the other hand allowing insurance companies to compete nationally by removing state border limitations will decrease insurance costs. Furthermore the 47 or 50 million uninsured in the country used to garner support for “health care reform” is totally bogus as explained many times by writers addressing this subject. The truth is that there are probably 15 million or less unable to afford health insurance, although these people are not denied health care under the law. There are simple and less expensive ways to provide them with health insurance if indeed that is the goal and not expanding government and government control.
Right now we have the ridiculously entitled “earned income tax credit” which is not a credit at all but out-and-out government welfare checks given to people who pay no taxes. It would be far less costly and less damaging to our health care system to simply enroll these people in a private health insurance plan.
The huge backlash to all the proposed health care reform bills does not sway any of the dedicated socialists in congress nor the chief socialist in the White House because they don’t care what the public thinks or wants. As good socialists they know what’s best for us and by God they will give that to us come hell or high water. But the secret behind their dedication is that it is expanded government control they want (with them in charge) and not improving the country.
Obama is about to make a national speech about what he calls health care reform. You can be certain he will say all the right things as he always does but he won’t change his objective of government control of this one-sixth of our economy no matter how he wraps it.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Hobson's choice - does the EPA or Congress dictate CO2 regulations
In 2007 Justice Anthony Kennedy decided that what we exhale every second of our lives, carbon dioxide (CO2), is a pollutant. As a result of this one man’s opinion, Americans will be subjected to government regulations that will change their world.
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens the U.S. Supreme Court said the language of the Clean Air Act, defining "air pollutant" is a “sweeping definition, and the greenhouse gases”, namely carbon dioxide, “fit well within the definition of air pollutant.” It was the vote of Anthony Kennedy, who joined with the liberal block that decided the issue; all four sensible Justices, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, dissented.
The case concerned the refusal of the EPA in the Bush administration to use its powers under the US Clean Air Act to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles by establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards, with a view to tackling the issue of climate change.
The EPA's grounds for refusal were that the Act did not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, as it does not pose a direct health risk and, even if it had the authority to regulate, it would be neither effective nor appropriate for it to do so. The EPA's decision was challenged by various US states, nongovernmental organizations and others before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which, by a majority, agreed that the EPA had properly exercised its discretion in denying the petition.
The petitioners then appealed to the US Supreme Court, where a majority (five to four, as said) upheld their appeal. The Supreme Court judgment deals with three important issues: (i) the standing of petitioners to challenge the EPA's decision; (ii) whether carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs are air pollutants under the Act and can be regulated by the EPA; and (iii) the adequacy of the EPA's reasons for determining not to regulate GHG emissions.
Unfortunately the dissenters made there case on procedural grounds regarding whether states could legislate regarding air pollution without addressing the important matter of whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant. By deciding that states have a right to address air pollution, the majority of the Court gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to determine if CO2 is a pollutant. The courts said that EPA has to come up with reasons that form a scientific judgment, and the reasons it gave were not in that category. So EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously and against the Clean Air Act.
The resulting determination by the EPA was a foregone conclusion since Obama had announced during his campaign for the presidency what he would do about this issue if elected president. On October 16, 2008, Bloomberg reported that through his energy advisor, Jason Grumet, Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions and that Obama will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers. Obama would initiate those rulemakings,'' Grumet also said in an interview in Boston. This action will halt construction plans on virtually all of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.
States where coal-fired plants will be affected include Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Montana, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia and Florida.
William Kovacs, Vice President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers said "Once carbon dioxide is regulated, they can no longer contain the Clean Air Act...and it would completely shut the country down."
In April this year, the EPA released its finding that man-made pollution is a cause of global warming. The EPA issued its determination based on the Supreme Court’s ruling that greenhouse gases, e.g. carbon dioxide, are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a human health danger. However there was no actual finding or evidence that carbon dioxide is a health risk. How could they; to declare CO2 a health risk would mean that breathing is dangerous to your health? Thus, the EPA did not follow the Supreme Court decision, it merely made an arbitrary ruling based on the false notion that carbon dioxide causes global warming and not that there are any health implications.
It is becoming increasingly clear that scientists disagree with the idea that CO2 has anything to do with global temperature changes. For example, MIT scientist, Professor Richard Lindzen, has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for. Professor Richard Lindzen’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”
“The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.”
“More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at least 80% of all heat caused by manmade ‘global warming’ must accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the ‘official’ theory that ‘global warming’ will happen on anything other than a minute scale.”
In addition to carbon dioxide, the EPA said five other emissions are believed to cause warming when they concentrate in the atmosphere: methane, which is emitted by gassy cows, as well as steam boilers; nitrous oxide, found in cooking sprays and used as anesthesia by dentists, better known as laughing gas; hydro fluorocarbons, which are used in refrigerators and aerosols; per fluorocarbons, a gas permeated by fire extinguishers, refrigerators and high end ski waxes; and sulfur hexafluoride, more commonly known for its use in circuit breakers, switchgear and other electrical equipment.
This leaves Americans between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”; the EPA rule making can be circumvented by Democrats desire to enact “Cap and Trade” legislation which would itself place draconian restrictions on Americans and the economy, or let the EPA do it by simply issuing regulations.
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens the U.S. Supreme Court said the language of the Clean Air Act, defining "air pollutant" is a “sweeping definition, and the greenhouse gases”, namely carbon dioxide, “fit well within the definition of air pollutant.” It was the vote of Anthony Kennedy, who joined with the liberal block that decided the issue; all four sensible Justices, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, dissented.
The case concerned the refusal of the EPA in the Bush administration to use its powers under the US Clean Air Act to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles by establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards, with a view to tackling the issue of climate change.
The EPA's grounds for refusal were that the Act did not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, as it does not pose a direct health risk and, even if it had the authority to regulate, it would be neither effective nor appropriate for it to do so. The EPA's decision was challenged by various US states, nongovernmental organizations and others before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which, by a majority, agreed that the EPA had properly exercised its discretion in denying the petition.
The petitioners then appealed to the US Supreme Court, where a majority (five to four, as said) upheld their appeal. The Supreme Court judgment deals with three important issues: (i) the standing of petitioners to challenge the EPA's decision; (ii) whether carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs are air pollutants under the Act and can be regulated by the EPA; and (iii) the adequacy of the EPA's reasons for determining not to regulate GHG emissions.
Unfortunately the dissenters made there case on procedural grounds regarding whether states could legislate regarding air pollution without addressing the important matter of whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant. By deciding that states have a right to address air pollution, the majority of the Court gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to determine if CO2 is a pollutant. The courts said that EPA has to come up with reasons that form a scientific judgment, and the reasons it gave were not in that category. So EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously and against the Clean Air Act.
The resulting determination by the EPA was a foregone conclusion since Obama had announced during his campaign for the presidency what he would do about this issue if elected president. On October 16, 2008, Bloomberg reported that through his energy advisor, Jason Grumet, Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions and that Obama will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers. Obama would initiate those rulemakings,'' Grumet also said in an interview in Boston. This action will halt construction plans on virtually all of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.
States where coal-fired plants will be affected include Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Montana, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia and Florida.
William Kovacs, Vice President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers said "Once carbon dioxide is regulated, they can no longer contain the Clean Air Act...and it would completely shut the country down."
In April this year, the EPA released its finding that man-made pollution is a cause of global warming. The EPA issued its determination based on the Supreme Court’s ruling that greenhouse gases, e.g. carbon dioxide, are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a human health danger. However there was no actual finding or evidence that carbon dioxide is a health risk. How could they; to declare CO2 a health risk would mean that breathing is dangerous to your health? Thus, the EPA did not follow the Supreme Court decision, it merely made an arbitrary ruling based on the false notion that carbon dioxide causes global warming and not that there are any health implications.
It is becoming increasingly clear that scientists disagree with the idea that CO2 has anything to do with global temperature changes. For example, MIT scientist, Professor Richard Lindzen, has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for. Professor Richard Lindzen’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”
“The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.”
“More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at least 80% of all heat caused by manmade ‘global warming’ must accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the ‘official’ theory that ‘global warming’ will happen on anything other than a minute scale.”
In addition to carbon dioxide, the EPA said five other emissions are believed to cause warming when they concentrate in the atmosphere: methane, which is emitted by gassy cows, as well as steam boilers; nitrous oxide, found in cooking sprays and used as anesthesia by dentists, better known as laughing gas; hydro fluorocarbons, which are used in refrigerators and aerosols; per fluorocarbons, a gas permeated by fire extinguishers, refrigerators and high end ski waxes; and sulfur hexafluoride, more commonly known for its use in circuit breakers, switchgear and other electrical equipment.
This leaves Americans between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”; the EPA rule making can be circumvented by Democrats desire to enact “Cap and Trade” legislation which would itself place draconian restrictions on Americans and the economy, or let the EPA do it by simply issuing regulations.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Will Americans stand up for freedom and liberty or will they go meekly into the world George Orwell described?
Obama became president by promising “change” and change is what we got. However while those who didn’t vote for Obama feared the kind of change that would occur with Obama as president, many of his supporters ignored what he said he would do as president to the detriment of us all and voted with their hearts and not with their heads.
Never in the history of our country has a president sought and succeeded in achieving revolutionary changes in a system of government as has Obama as president together with a compliant congress dominated by extreme leftists of like mind – you might call this “the perfect storm” in it’s cataclysmic results.
It is interesting to review what Obama has done to our country in much less than one year and what he plans for us; consider this:
1. President Obama has placed the federal government in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries and 19 of Americas largest banks have been supervised by the federal government in unparallel ways while being forced to undergo stress tests by the federal government to decide if they are sufficiently capitalized according to new government standards.
2. The federal government has become the largest shareholder in automakers General Motors and Chrysler and has fired the CEOs of these companies while appointing executives in their place with absolutely no experience in the auto industry and dictating what executive compensation will be without the approval of the Board of Directors or share holders.
3. President Obama has appointed 44 “Czars” (at last count) without congressional approval who are accountable only to him, not congress or the voters, and have control over a wide range of federal policy decisions. Among these Czars are a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and dozens of other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over domestic and foreign policies and some of clearly Marxist ideology.
4. President Obama has increase the federal deficit by trillions of dollars triple the $454.8 billion deficit in 2008 for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. Obama and the Democrat-dominated congress approved a $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010 when our gross domestic product is only about $14 trillion (before Obama, no telling what it is now) and the projected deficit over the next ten years is greater than $10 trillion.
5. The Obama Justice Department has ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan. Obama ordered the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there and several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo were sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government while our returning US veterans are labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.
6. The Obama Justice Department has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate whether CIA agents broke the law (what law?) interrogating captured terrorists, including the mastermind of the 9/11 attack on our country, to elicit information about the attackers and plans for future attacks.
7. Under President Obama the federal government has sought powers to seize key companies whose purported failures could jeopardize the financial system, as solely determined by the federal government. Obama has proposed a new regulatory agency to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.
8. Obama traveled around the world early in his term to apologize for Americas past imperialist” actions, gave a speech in the Middle East lauding the (false) contributions of Muslims in America while bowing before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologized for Americas past actions. Obama also traveled to South America, embraced Hugo Chavez and sat passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America.
9. It’s no secret that Obama and his new Marxist appointee to the FCC now want to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new Fairness Doctrine-like regulations without congressional consent and to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, radio or advocacy ads.
10. Obama and the Justice Department want to limit our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and Obama appointed a Justice to the Supreme Court with a record of limiting Second Amendment rights. The Obama Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.
11. Obama has a plan to eliminate states’ rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people such as controlling the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every American and to “spread the wealth” ala Marxist philosophy.
12. Obama has repeatedly ignored the Constitution by seizing powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict.
13. Obama insists upon destroying our health care industry by law with draconian limitations on medical providers and the public such that the 185 million here with health care coverage would have their health care diminished in order to provide health insurance to about 10 to 15 million who have no health insurance despite the fact that they are not now being deprived of health care when needed.
14. At Obama’s urging laws are being passed (one has already been passed by the House, “Cap and Trade”) that will drastically curtail the life style of Americans while grossly increasing costs of everything literally from “soup to nuts” and especially electricity.
Obama campaigned on the promise of providing “hope and change” but in reality what he has given us is hopeless destruction of the fundamentals which have made the United States great and the envy of the world. Will Americans stand up against the Obama revolutionary changes now that they know what Obama really stands for or will they go meekly into the world that George Orwell described?
Never in the history of our country has a president sought and succeeded in achieving revolutionary changes in a system of government as has Obama as president together with a compliant congress dominated by extreme leftists of like mind – you might call this “the perfect storm” in it’s cataclysmic results.
It is interesting to review what Obama has done to our country in much less than one year and what he plans for us; consider this:
1. President Obama has placed the federal government in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries and 19 of Americas largest banks have been supervised by the federal government in unparallel ways while being forced to undergo stress tests by the federal government to decide if they are sufficiently capitalized according to new government standards.
2. The federal government has become the largest shareholder in automakers General Motors and Chrysler and has fired the CEOs of these companies while appointing executives in their place with absolutely no experience in the auto industry and dictating what executive compensation will be without the approval of the Board of Directors or share holders.
3. President Obama has appointed 44 “Czars” (at last count) without congressional approval who are accountable only to him, not congress or the voters, and have control over a wide range of federal policy decisions. Among these Czars are a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and dozens of other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over domestic and foreign policies and some of clearly Marxist ideology.
4. President Obama has increase the federal deficit by trillions of dollars triple the $454.8 billion deficit in 2008 for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. Obama and the Democrat-dominated congress approved a $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010 when our gross domestic product is only about $14 trillion (before Obama, no telling what it is now) and the projected deficit over the next ten years is greater than $10 trillion.
5. The Obama Justice Department has ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan. Obama ordered the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there and several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo were sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government while our returning US veterans are labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.
6. The Obama Justice Department has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate whether CIA agents broke the law (what law?) interrogating captured terrorists, including the mastermind of the 9/11 attack on our country, to elicit information about the attackers and plans for future attacks.
7. Under President Obama the federal government has sought powers to seize key companies whose purported failures could jeopardize the financial system, as solely determined by the federal government. Obama has proposed a new regulatory agency to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.
8. Obama traveled around the world early in his term to apologize for Americas past imperialist” actions, gave a speech in the Middle East lauding the (false) contributions of Muslims in America while bowing before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologized for Americas past actions. Obama also traveled to South America, embraced Hugo Chavez and sat passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America.
9. It’s no secret that Obama and his new Marxist appointee to the FCC now want to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new Fairness Doctrine-like regulations without congressional consent and to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, radio or advocacy ads.
10. Obama and the Justice Department want to limit our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and Obama appointed a Justice to the Supreme Court with a record of limiting Second Amendment rights. The Obama Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.
11. Obama has a plan to eliminate states’ rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people such as controlling the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every American and to “spread the wealth” ala Marxist philosophy.
12. Obama has repeatedly ignored the Constitution by seizing powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict.
13. Obama insists upon destroying our health care industry by law with draconian limitations on medical providers and the public such that the 185 million here with health care coverage would have their health care diminished in order to provide health insurance to about 10 to 15 million who have no health insurance despite the fact that they are not now being deprived of health care when needed.
14. At Obama’s urging laws are being passed (one has already been passed by the House, “Cap and Trade”) that will drastically curtail the life style of Americans while grossly increasing costs of everything literally from “soup to nuts” and especially electricity.
Obama campaigned on the promise of providing “hope and change” but in reality what he has given us is hopeless destruction of the fundamentals which have made the United States great and the envy of the world. Will Americans stand up against the Obama revolutionary changes now that they know what Obama really stands for or will they go meekly into the world that George Orwell described?
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Just as Democrats lied about Social Security, they are lying about Obamacare
Many seniors rely on social security to support themselves, in whole or in part. When social security was enacted into law during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a number of promises were made.
For example Democrat FDR promised:
1.) That participation in the Social Security Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) that the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Social Security as promised by President Roosevelt does not exist and you may be interested in knowing why.
In 1958, a Democrat controlled congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove some funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for congress to spend. From what I understand, congress’ logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out or be used up for the purpose it was intended and set aside for.
During the administration of Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson and with a Democrat controlled House and Senate, the entire Social Security Trust Fund was placed in the general fund so congress could spend it on the failed “War Against Poverty.”
The presidency of Democrat James Earl Carter, Jr. was a dismal failure and a catastrophe for the United States on many levels but under President Carter and a Democrat controlled congress, immigrants, including illegal immigrants, were given the right to receive Social Security payments at age 65 even though they never paid anything into Social Security.
When Democrat William Jefferson Clinton was president, the income tax deduction for Social Security was eliminated. The Democrat Party with Democrat Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. as Vice president was able to accomplish this because a tie vote in the Senate was broken by Democrat Vice President Gore in his role as President of the Senate.
Despite the fact that Democrats in congress and Democrat Presidents violated every one of the promises made by President Roosevelt at the inception of Social Security, we are told over and over that Republicans want to take Social Security away from seniors. By the way, did you know that congress gives themselves 100% retirement for serving only one term?
Now President Obama wants to reduce benefits to seniors even more. All the health care bills in congress as prescribed by President Obama provide paying for universal health care by reducing the amount spent on Medicare for seniors. These bills would also establish a government board that will dictate the medical care which can be provided on a “cost effective” basis such that older people will be deprived of needed life-extending medical care because it is not cost effective to spend money on those with comparatively shorter life spans. Furthermore, with more people having health insurance, and no increase in the number of health care providers, rationing of health care is assured.
Obama and Democrats say that it is “scare tactics” to tell people what actually is in the Democrat Obamacare bills wending their way through congress but I believe telling the truth is what Americans expect and unfortunately do not get from Democrats; the history of Social Security is an example.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Thomas Jefferson
For example Democrat FDR promised:
1.) That participation in the Social Security Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) that the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Social Security as promised by President Roosevelt does not exist and you may be interested in knowing why.
In 1958, a Democrat controlled congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove some funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for congress to spend. From what I understand, congress’ logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out or be used up for the purpose it was intended and set aside for.
During the administration of Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson and with a Democrat controlled House and Senate, the entire Social Security Trust Fund was placed in the general fund so congress could spend it on the failed “War Against Poverty.”
The presidency of Democrat James Earl Carter, Jr. was a dismal failure and a catastrophe for the United States on many levels but under President Carter and a Democrat controlled congress, immigrants, including illegal immigrants, were given the right to receive Social Security payments at age 65 even though they never paid anything into Social Security.
When Democrat William Jefferson Clinton was president, the income tax deduction for Social Security was eliminated. The Democrat Party with Democrat Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. as Vice president was able to accomplish this because a tie vote in the Senate was broken by Democrat Vice President Gore in his role as President of the Senate.
Despite the fact that Democrats in congress and Democrat Presidents violated every one of the promises made by President Roosevelt at the inception of Social Security, we are told over and over that Republicans want to take Social Security away from seniors. By the way, did you know that congress gives themselves 100% retirement for serving only one term?
Now President Obama wants to reduce benefits to seniors even more. All the health care bills in congress as prescribed by President Obama provide paying for universal health care by reducing the amount spent on Medicare for seniors. These bills would also establish a government board that will dictate the medical care which can be provided on a “cost effective” basis such that older people will be deprived of needed life-extending medical care because it is not cost effective to spend money on those with comparatively shorter life spans. Furthermore, with more people having health insurance, and no increase in the number of health care providers, rationing of health care is assured.
Obama and Democrats say that it is “scare tactics” to tell people what actually is in the Democrat Obamacare bills wending their way through congress but I believe telling the truth is what Americans expect and unfortunately do not get from Democrats; the history of Social Security is an example.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Another government intrusion of Obamacare revealed
Much has been written about H.R. 3200, the bill to nationalize health care, but most of the truth about it has only appeared on the internet and by some political commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck. As time goes on we find out more and more hidden in this House bill that boggles the mind.
We know about the creation of a panel of Washington bureaucrats to be formed to apply “cost effectiveness” when deciding what medical care may or may not be approved for individual patients but whose real purpose is to deny medical treatment to elderly to reduce costs. We also know about mandated health insurance coverage for all Americans while not increasing the supply of medical providers. But particularly insidious provisions have only now come to light.
Declan McCullagh (AP) has revealed that one of the problems with the proposed 1,000 page law to destroy health care for Americans is in Section 431(a) which says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose purportedly is to verify "affordability credits."
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank) asked "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."
But the Obamacare bill is not the only intrusion on privacy; we already have something in place that came in under the radar with the stealth Stimulus bill. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections.
This is more of the “hope and change” Americans voted for; but I wonder if ceding their privacy for all eternity is what they had in mind.
We know about the creation of a panel of Washington bureaucrats to be formed to apply “cost effectiveness” when deciding what medical care may or may not be approved for individual patients but whose real purpose is to deny medical treatment to elderly to reduce costs. We also know about mandated health insurance coverage for all Americans while not increasing the supply of medical providers. But particularly insidious provisions have only now come to light.
Declan McCullagh (AP) has revealed that one of the problems with the proposed 1,000 page law to destroy health care for Americans is in Section 431(a) which says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose purportedly is to verify "affordability credits."
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank) asked "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."
But the Obamacare bill is not the only intrusion on privacy; we already have something in place that came in under the radar with the stealth Stimulus bill. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections.
This is more of the “hope and change” Americans voted for; but I wonder if ceding their privacy for all eternity is what they had in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
