Archive for October, 2009

The Way Things Really Are 10/29/09

This came from a financial blog. The guy hits the nail right on the head.

The speaker of the house today gleefully announced as only she can do that a sweeping new bill has worked its way through the house chamber and once enacted, will provide affordable health INSURANCE for nearly every American.

To do this, the new bill will create a public health INSURANCE company to compete with private insurance companies, require everyone to have insurance, subsidize low income workers by taking from others (again) and require large businesses to cover their employees. Large businesses will presumably (the bill did not seem to consider what large businesses will do to make up the added cost) either pass the cost on to the consumer (another hidden tax further eroding discretionary income) or if competing with foreign manufacturers will probably just go out of business, but heck, congress has been doing that to our workers for a long time so that is nothing new. We will just keep extending unemployment benefits and stick the bill to the next several generations.

The stated price tag for this insurance coverage is estimated at only $894 billion. This $894 billion dollar boondoggle is the result of trying to cover 25 million un-insured with health INSURANCE. Do the math. That is $35,760 for each un-insured. Hey, it’s a government program so what did you expect? A bargain? Consider this. The ancestors of today’s demo goons thought social security would only require $30 per worker per year. Today, the payroll tax bite for that little gem and its offspring Medicare is up to $15,300 per worker per year which is I guess just a Washington style rounding error from the original $30 per year estimate.

So don’t be surprised if the $894 billion swells to the stratosphere just as every other government program has done. The insanity in all this is Obama actually praised Medicare many times as being a good example of what can be done in having the government provide this sort of program. I guess he does not realize that Medicare is now under funded by nearly $40 Trillion. But hey, there is no accountability if they are wrong and the future will get the bill, not you and me, so why even care?

We are still in a deep recession, yet here we go again, being led by Obama, down another path of treating the recession with higher taxes, higher costs, and more government spending. And in this case, the government has done absolutely nothing to reign in the originally stated problem of the cost of health CARE itself. This is because the original goal of making health CARE more affordable was very quickly shown to be a difficult goal, so Obama and his spin-minions changed course in March and began marching toward the revised goal of making health INSURANCE more affordable, thus creating a “crisis” in health INSURANCE. Government just loves a “crisis”.

Question. How many long distance passenger rail lines of significance do we have in this country? Other than Amtrak? None that I know of. Keep that thought in mind, because the government has been subsidizing Amtrak and Amtrak in turn has charged less for a ticket than its costs would otherwise indicate. Hence, there are no other long distance passenger rail lines because the private sector is not allowed to just print money. It has to earn it. So private enterprise can not compete with government.

Apply this Amtrak analogy to the fact that the government is going to sell health INSURANCE and compete against the private health INSURANCE companies. The only reason to buy the government’s insurance would be that it is cheaper, that is a given. So, if it too is subsidized just like Amtrak (remember the $894 billion estimate – that is the estimated cost of subsidy at this point), how then is there to be a different result? How are we to avoid wiping out most private sector health INSURANCE companies? This is a very real possibility, but we should not question Obama as that is un American.

These same goons in government garb recently tried to provide housing for nearly everyone in America by creating two public GSE’s (Fannie and Freddie) that were to help lower the cost of a MORTGAGES instead of increasing discretionary incomes (cutting taxes) or making the cost of HOUSING itself more affordable. Do you remember what happened? The cost of HOUSING increased due to the bubble demand created by the government assisted mortgage programs. The result, HOUSING costs for everyone went up, and then the MORTGAGES failed and many more people than were originally helped saw their life savings wiped out as the stock market failed, as the value of their real estate declined, and as the round of foreclosures still working its way through our economy put people in the streets, literally, after losing their jobs and their houses. In the end, the government’s attempt to provide a government assist to home ownership actually deprived millions of their homes, and many more millions of their livelihood. Did socialism work? No. So heck, let’s try it again anyway.

So we are now going to spend $35,000 per uninsured, raise the cost of doing business, become even less competitive with overseas suppliers, and hope the taxpayer is still too dumb to see the real cost of doing this. So I say yippee. We have now “fixed” the health INSURANCE “crisis”. In Washington speak, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste”.

What have we done to make health CARE more affordable? Nothing. We gave up on that “crisis” in March because changing that paradigm would have stepped on too many toes belonging to too many special interests that donate too many funds to Political Action Committees just as did the GSE’s and the banking Industry in the last debacle. So with health CARE costs continuing to climb, and health INSURANCE costs capped at will by the government (we will probably have another Czar, yippee again), the health INSURANCE industry is going to be in for a rough ride, just as a passenger rail line would be in if it tried to compete with Amtrak. We are not supposed to think of these things. Instead, just trust Pelosi. After all, she is from a state that is now broke. So let’s be more like California.

The bottom line is simply this. In Washington, one “crisis” is as good as another, because a “crisis” is a blank check to expand the role of government. So, if you don’t have a crisis, you can just create one. Housing, global warming, health INSURANCE, etc., etc. See what I mean. With every crisis, you lose more of your freedoms and government gets even bigger, employing more and more people that do nothing of value at great cost, pushing the deficits higher in the process.

America, I am convinced, will fail from the enemy within.

Same Thing – Again, But Now Its New

Pelosi Prepares Release of Public Option Bill

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:52 PM
Article Font Size

WASHINGTON � House Democrats are poised to unveil health care legislation that would vastly alter America’s medical landscape, requiring virtually universal sign-ups and offering a new government-run plan for people without affordable coverage.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was making plans to release the bill Thursday morning, contingent on the outcome of a meeting of House leaders Wednesday afternoon, according to lawmakers and aides.

The rollout would cap months of arduous negotiations to bridge differences between liberal and moderate Democrats and blend health care overhaul bills passed by three separate committees over the summer. The developments in the House came as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to round up support among moderate Democrats for his bill, which includes a modified government insurance option that states could opt out of.

The final product in the House, reflecting many of President Barack Obama’s priorities, includes new requirements for employers to offer insurance to their workers or face penalties, fines on Americans who don’t purchase coverage and subsidies to help lower-income people do so. Insurance companies would face new prohibitions against charging much more to older people or denying coverage to people with health conditions.

The price tag, topping $1 trillion over 10 years, would be paid for by taxing high-income people and cutting some $500 billion in payments to Medicare providers.

"I’m pretty confident that we’ve got the right pieces in place," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, one of the three panels involved in writing the bill. "We can quibble over parts of it, but the fact is when you’re taking a 60-year-old system that grew up in a rather haphazard fashion and you’re trying to bring some coherence to it, these are sort of the things you have to do at the beginning of that process."

In the end, Pelosi, D-Calif., and other House leaders were unable to round up the necessary votes for their preferred version of the government insurance plan � one that would base payment rates to providers on rates paid by Medicare. Instead, the health and human services secretary would be allowed to negotiate rates with providers and the program would be optional for states, the approach preferred by moderates and the one that will be featured in the Senate’s version.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Emphasis added by Freedom Finder

House Bill Raises, Not Lowers, Health Care Costs

The Chief Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Obama Health and Human Services department issued a memorandum late yesterday looking at the potential impact of the House health reform legislation (H.R. 3200). As the Associated Press and other media outlets have been reporting, the study shows that- among other things- the legislation would, as President Obama promised, bend the health care cost curve … but  in the wrong direction.

healthcostcurve

The findings suggest that if the House legislation were enacted, President Obama would be breaking his long standing promise that reform would reduce rapidly growing health care costs. Although the President has continually argued that Americans spend too much on health care, and that under reform they would spend less, the new HHS report finds the opposite is likely to occur under the House legislation. Here are some key findings from the HHS memorandum:

  • The legislation would increase total national health expenditures in the U.S. by about 2.1 percent during the period between 2010 and 2019.
  • As a share of gross domestic product (GDP) health care spending would grow to 21.3 percent compared to 20.8 estimated under current law.
  • The bill carries a price tag of about $1 trillion dollars (from 2013 to 2019), which does not even represent a full 10-year cost estimate.
  • The measure is likely to deliver only small savings despite the many provisions intended to reduce the growth in health care costs.
  • While the proposal might cover 34 million uninsured it would still leave 23 million people without coverage, including as many as 18 million Americans who would remain uninsured and face a new tax penalty.
  • More than 50 percent of the new coverage gains under the bill (18 million out of 34 million) would come from expansions in the Medicaid program.
  • 40 percent of those obtaining coverage through a newly established health insurance exchange could be enrolled in the public option.
  • Cuts to the popular Medicare Advantage program for seniors could have the effect of reducing enrollment by 64 percent, with projected enrollment in 2014 falling from 13.2 million to only 4.7 million seniors.
  • And, all told, the plan puts new strains on health care providers which could lead to price increases, increased cost-shifting onto the privately insured, and/or compromised access to high quality care.

In sum, the findings in the report aren’t pretty. Let’s just hope the White House and Democrats in Congress got the memo.

Source: Greg D’Angelo, "House Bill Raises, Not Lowers, Health Care Costs," Heritage Foundation, October 22, 2009.

Freedom of Speech – Unless the White House Doesn’t Like It

White House Escalates War on Beck, Hannity

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:43 PM
Article Font Size

The White House continued its war against Fox News Tuesday when press secretary Robert Gibbs singled out specific shows on the Fox News network for criticism: Glenn Beck�s and Sean Hannity�s.

Meeting with reporters in his office for an off-camera question-and-answer session, Gibbs parried questions about the White House’s harsh criticism of the cable news network, leveled on several Sunday shows by officials including White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and senior adviser David Axelrod, according to Politico.

Asked if it was fair for the White House to label Fox an illegitimate news organization, Gibbs replied: “We render opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness of their coverage.”

When a reporter pressed further, asking Gibbs to explain more specifically how Fox differed from ABC, MSNBC or Univision, the president’s spokesman pointed to two shows in particular as sources of concern.

“You and I should watch sometime around 9 tonight or 5 this afternoon,” Gibbs said, alluding to the 5 p.m. show hosted by Glenn Beck and the 9 p.m. program anchored by Sean Hannity.

When a reporter pointed out that these are opinion shows, Gibb�s tersely replied, �That�s our opinion.�

It’s not the first time the White House has directed fire at Beck, who has doggedly covered White House officials including Anita Dunn, the communications director, and Van Jones, the green jobs czar who resigned over Labor Day weekend.

From newsmax.com

The Administration Practicing Article One of the Constitution

The present Administration seems bent on destroying the Constitution.  Here is another attack on this hallowed instrument, the one America was founded on:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_tv_obama_fox/2009/10/12/271219.html?s=al&promo_code=8BAE-1

Cute, huh?

Freedom Finder