Saturday, March 6, 2010
What Obama Didn't Tell, or Lied About, in Latest Health Care Bill
Here are aspects and consequences of Obama's revised Senate version of the bill that he introduced Monday, March 1st. This is some of WHAT OBAMA DIDN'T TELL, OR LIED ABOUT, to the American people in the Health Care Summit and in his 120 or so speeches and interviews about ObamaCare.
1. The bill will cost $1 trillion over the first 10 years and the revenue will be $1 trillion. What he doesn't say, lying by omission, is that INSURANCE PREMIUMS WILL BE FORCED TO INCREASE to help cover 30 million more people.
2. Half of this $ 1 trillion revenue will be a $500 BILLION CUT IN MEDICARE. There is no amount of double talk that can hide the fact that Seniors will get worse and rationed care. The basic economics for running hospitals and doctors offices will force these outcomes.
3. The other half of the $1 trillion revenue will come from INCREASES IN TAXES, income taxes, capital gains taxes, medical device taxes and certain medical procedures taxes. Only part come from allowing the Bush cuts to expire, the rest is further Obama tax increases.
4. Many of the 30 million added to the rolls AS WELL AS many now having employer insurance or self-insurance will get government subsidized insurance which is covered in part by the Medicare cuts and the increased taxes, but also by an AVERAGE INCREASE IN INSURANCE PREMIUMS OF $2000 which will fall back on employers and individuals.
5. YOUNG PEOPLE who do not want insurance will be FORCED TO BUY INSURANCE AT ABOUT $8000 per year unless they fall into a low income category so that others wind up paying for them as described above. A PENALTY OF 2.5% OF INCOME will be assessed against those that refuse to buy insurance.
6. Obama's claim that the revenues and expenses will balance over the first ten years is a trick; OBAMA IS COUNTING 10 YEARS OF REVENUE BUT ONLY 6 YEARS OF BENEFITS PAID OUT; no benefits for first four years.
7. AFTER FIRST TEN YEARS OBAMACARE GOES INTO HUGE DEFICIT SPENDING UNLESS TAXES ARE RAISED significantly to cover about $1 trillion OR HEALTH CARE IS FURTHER RATIONED FOR EVERYONE. All this time, premiums are higher than they are now because of the huge government subsidization.
8. Health care will no longer remain in the private sector; the bill CREATES 118 NEW BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. An huge bureaucracy will be sitting on top of, and CONTROLLING EVERY ASPECT AND DECISION ABOUT HEALTH CARE while bloating government even further.
9. The CBO scoring of the bill is a fake, it is a shell game that the CBO is forced to follow. The CBO must score a bill with all of the clauses as given to them. Rep. Paul Ryan and others have pointed out many of the false assumptions and phony accounting tricks used by Obama and the Democrats. When the GIMMICKS IN ACCOUNTING are removed, then the best estimates are that the REAL COST of Obama's bill will be $2.3 trillion over a decade. Warren Buffett characterized the bill as a FAILURE because it will not bend the cost curve down.
SEE MY POSTING ON SUNDAY FEBRUARY 28, 2010 WITH REP. PAUL RYAN'S ANALYSIS AND DETAILS OF OBAMA'S ACCOUNTING GIMMICKS.
1. The bill will cost $1 trillion over the first 10 years and the revenue will be $1 trillion. What he doesn't say, lying by omission, is that INSURANCE PREMIUMS WILL BE FORCED TO INCREASE to help cover 30 million more people.
2. Half of this $ 1 trillion revenue will be a $500 BILLION CUT IN MEDICARE. There is no amount of double talk that can hide the fact that Seniors will get worse and rationed care. The basic economics for running hospitals and doctors offices will force these outcomes.
3. The other half of the $1 trillion revenue will come from INCREASES IN TAXES, income taxes, capital gains taxes, medical device taxes and certain medical procedures taxes. Only part come from allowing the Bush cuts to expire, the rest is further Obama tax increases.
4. Many of the 30 million added to the rolls AS WELL AS many now having employer insurance or self-insurance will get government subsidized insurance which is covered in part by the Medicare cuts and the increased taxes, but also by an AVERAGE INCREASE IN INSURANCE PREMIUMS OF $2000 which will fall back on employers and individuals.
5. YOUNG PEOPLE who do not want insurance will be FORCED TO BUY INSURANCE AT ABOUT $8000 per year unless they fall into a low income category so that others wind up paying for them as described above. A PENALTY OF 2.5% OF INCOME will be assessed against those that refuse to buy insurance.
6. Obama's claim that the revenues and expenses will balance over the first ten years is a trick; OBAMA IS COUNTING 10 YEARS OF REVENUE BUT ONLY 6 YEARS OF BENEFITS PAID OUT; no benefits for first four years.
7. AFTER FIRST TEN YEARS OBAMACARE GOES INTO HUGE DEFICIT SPENDING UNLESS TAXES ARE RAISED significantly to cover about $1 trillion OR HEALTH CARE IS FURTHER RATIONED FOR EVERYONE. All this time, premiums are higher than they are now because of the huge government subsidization.
8. Health care will no longer remain in the private sector; the bill CREATES 118 NEW BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. An huge bureaucracy will be sitting on top of, and CONTROLLING EVERY ASPECT AND DECISION ABOUT HEALTH CARE while bloating government even further.
9. The CBO scoring of the bill is a fake, it is a shell game that the CBO is forced to follow. The CBO must score a bill with all of the clauses as given to them. Rep. Paul Ryan and others have pointed out many of the false assumptions and phony accounting tricks used by Obama and the Democrats. When the GIMMICKS IN ACCOUNTING are removed, then the best estimates are that the REAL COST of Obama's bill will be $2.3 trillion over a decade. Warren Buffett characterized the bill as a FAILURE because it will not bend the cost curve down.
SEE MY POSTING ON SUNDAY FEBRUARY 28, 2010 WITH REP. PAUL RYAN'S ANALYSIS AND DETAILS OF OBAMA'S ACCOUNTING GIMMICKS.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Obama Tries to Sneak Around SupermajorityRule by Using Reconciliation
Those that say there is no foundation in the Constitution for requiring a "super-majority" are simply ignorant! Super-majorities are not a new idea, they appear in the Constitution with two-thirds of both Houses to propose a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of both Houses to over-ride a president's veto, two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a treaty and three-quarters of state legislatures to adopt a constitutional amendment.
Until 1917 unlimited debate was allowed in the Senate. In 1917, the Senate adopted Rule 22 which stated that two-thirds of theSenate ("SUPERMAJORITY" ) could end a debate ("filibuster"). In 1975 Senate Rule 22 was changed to a three-fifths "supermajority" (sixty votes) could end a debate ("filibuster").
The right for the Senate to create such a rule traces back to the Constitution, Article 1, section 5 which states “Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings.” It was under this constitutional clause that the Senate imposed on itself a "super-majority" rule to end debate. The Senate also set the rule that a majority of 1 is all that is needed to "RECONCILE" budget matters. Obama's modified 2700 page Senate Health Care Reform bill, ("ObamaCare"), is far far from a simple budget matter, it establishes many mandates, agencies, procedures, in fact, an entire national structure for health care involving the government, insurance companies, medical professionals and patients, most of which has nothing to do with approving a budget. So, Obama is trying to ram through ObamaCare by steamrolling over the established constitutional Senate rules and lying that "reconciliation" can be used.
Barack Obama 4/25/05 said: “The President (Bush at the time) hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED".
The Hypocrisy of Obama!
The Framers of the Constitution also recognized the value of super-majority votes. James Madison wrote (in The Federalist papers) that super-majority votes serve as a “shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures.”
Until 1917 unlimited debate was allowed in the Senate. In 1917, the Senate adopted Rule 22 which stated that two-thirds of theSenate ("SUPERMAJORITY" ) could end a debate ("filibuster"). In 1975 Senate Rule 22 was changed to a three-fifths "supermajority" (sixty votes) could end a debate ("filibuster").
The right for the Senate to create such a rule traces back to the Constitution, Article 1, section 5 which states “Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings.” It was under this constitutional clause that the Senate imposed on itself a "super-majority" rule to end debate. The Senate also set the rule that a majority of 1 is all that is needed to "RECONCILE" budget matters. Obama's modified 2700 page Senate Health Care Reform bill, ("ObamaCare"), is far far from a simple budget matter, it establishes many mandates, agencies, procedures, in fact, an entire national structure for health care involving the government, insurance companies, medical professionals and patients, most of which has nothing to do with approving a budget. So, Obama is trying to ram through ObamaCare by steamrolling over the established constitutional Senate rules and lying that "reconciliation" can be used.
Barack Obama 4/25/05 said: “The President (Bush at the time) hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED".
The Hypocrisy of Obama!
The Framers of the Constitution also recognized the value of super-majority votes. James Madison wrote (in The Federalist papers) that super-majority votes serve as a “shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures.”
Obama's Performance at The Health Care Summit Was Revealing
Obama will try to ram through ObamaCare; in his mind it's meant to be the CENTER PIECE OF HIS LEGACY in the overall transforming America. It's what he promised when not enough people were listening.
But now we all know THE REAL OBAMA AS REVEALED IN THE HEALTHCARE SUMMIT with no teleprompters.
Even with lots of preparation, Obama, in the role of "MODERATOR" and seeking "BIPARTISANSHIP" acted CONDESCENDING, ELITIST, DEFENSIVE, ARGUMENTATIVE AND EVASIVE.
Not the kind of leader that anyone would want to work for in business or public service.
At times, OBAMA tried to appear "ACADEMIC" and PHILOSOPHICAL but he HAD FACTS WRONG and LIED by omission and commission.
In the end, we saw the real Obama, a CHICAGO-STYLE politico COERCING, BRIBING, THREATENING, APPEASING SPECIAL INTERESTS, and IGNORANT of, OR simply IGNORING, FACTS.
Just WHAT YOU MIGHT EXPECT from a spoiled brat who was always told he was the smartest one in the room (but wasn't really), who had his way paid and paved for him, and who was always surrounded and protected by those using him and by sycophants.
Now we know that OBAMA DOESN'T JUST USE TELEPROMPTERS, he hides behind teleprompters; HE NEEDS TELEPROMPTERS to perpetuate that phony "Hope-Change" image
But now we all know THE REAL OBAMA AS REVEALED IN THE HEALTHCARE SUMMIT with no teleprompters.
Even with lots of preparation, Obama, in the role of "MODERATOR" and seeking "BIPARTISANSHIP" acted CONDESCENDING, ELITIST, DEFENSIVE, ARGUMENTATIVE AND EVASIVE.
Not the kind of leader that anyone would want to work for in business or public service.
At times, OBAMA tried to appear "ACADEMIC" and PHILOSOPHICAL but he HAD FACTS WRONG and LIED by omission and commission.
In the end, we saw the real Obama, a CHICAGO-STYLE politico COERCING, BRIBING, THREATENING, APPEASING SPECIAL INTERESTS, and IGNORANT of, OR simply IGNORING, FACTS.
Just WHAT YOU MIGHT EXPECT from a spoiled brat who was always told he was the smartest one in the room (but wasn't really), who had his way paid and paved for him, and who was always surrounded and protected by those using him and by sycophants.
Now we know that OBAMA DOESN'T JUST USE TELEPROMPTERS, he hides behind teleprompters; HE NEEDS TELEPROMPTERS to perpetuate that phony "Hope-Change" image
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Mind of a Socialist
OBAMA'S PRIMARY MOTIVATION for health care reform is for the government to take control of this segment of the economy, along with education and energy. This is the game plan for all SOCIALIST governments. This will create more government jobs and increase the power of government through controlling the money. This will enable the socialist Obama to reward (bribe) those who give campaign contributions and vote for him while punishing those that oppose him.
Because Obama is a socialist, it is more important to redistribute the cost along lines of ability to pay rather than equal cost for equal health services. Higher taxes ("fees") are to be used for redistribution and for coercion of opponents.
Because Obama is a socialist, it is more important to have everyone get a comparable level of health care no matter how bad that care is, even if this means degrading the overall level of health care.
OBAMA IS SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE SCRIPT OF EVERY SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT.
Because Obama is a socialist, it is more important to redistribute the cost along lines of ability to pay rather than equal cost for equal health services. Higher taxes ("fees") are to be used for redistribution and for coercion of opponents.
Because Obama is a socialist, it is more important to have everyone get a comparable level of health care no matter how bad that care is, even if this means degrading the overall level of health care.
OBAMA IS SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE SCRIPT OF EVERY SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT.
Truth About Bush's Deficit in Last Year in Office
The often quoted Bush $1.3 trillion deficit is a huge distortion and a quirk of the government budget process; Obama and the Democrats know this but they continue to lie about it anyhow. Many others quote the $1.3 trillion figure out of ignorance.
The truth is that Bush had a real deficit of about $600 billion. THEN THE TARP FUNDS OF $700 BILLION, WHICH WERE SUPPOSED TO BE A LOAN NOT SPENDING, WERE ADDED TO THE BUSH BUDGET AS IS THE STANDARD GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING PRACTICE. EVEN THOUGH $500 BILLION HAS BEEN REPAID, THE "BUSH DEFICIT" DOES NOT GET CREDIT FOR THIS. THE $200 BILLION THAT IS NOT BEING REPAID IS PRIMARILY FROM AIG, GM AND CHRYSLER, all of whom who Obama continued to bailout and excuse repayments.
Of course, Obama wants to continue to recycle the TARP funds since he views this as "free money" that was assigned to the Bush deficit. Obama can even absorb other losses with this TARP money and it still will not be assigned to his budget as it rightfully should be.
The truth is that Bush had a real deficit of about $600 billion. THEN THE TARP FUNDS OF $700 BILLION, WHICH WERE SUPPOSED TO BE A LOAN NOT SPENDING, WERE ADDED TO THE BUSH BUDGET AS IS THE STANDARD GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING PRACTICE. EVEN THOUGH $500 BILLION HAS BEEN REPAID, THE "BUSH DEFICIT" DOES NOT GET CREDIT FOR THIS. THE $200 BILLION THAT IS NOT BEING REPAID IS PRIMARILY FROM AIG, GM AND CHRYSLER, all of whom who Obama continued to bailout and excuse repayments.
Of course, Obama wants to continue to recycle the TARP funds since he views this as "free money" that was assigned to the Bush deficit. Obama can even absorb other losses with this TARP money and it still will not be assigned to his budget as it rightfully should be.
Charlie "Tax Cheat" Rangel and Nancy "Drain The Swamp" Pelosi
Pelosi pledged to run the most ethical congress in history. She was going to "DRAIN THE SWAMP" as in almost everything, PELOSI IS ONE OF THE MOST UNETHICAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, lying and distorting the truth so often, bringing pork to her district to benefit her husbands real estate investments,handing our pork to supporters in her district and elsewhere and using her position to milk the taxpayers of tens of millions on her travel and parties.
Why is it a surprise that Pelosi will NOT RISK ANTAGONIZING THE BLACK CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS (Rangel was a founder) by insisting on rapid hearings and severe sanctions for Charlie The Tax Cheat Rangel who has clearly committed a number of unethical, if not criminal, acts?
Rangel makes a meaningless gesture, NOT RESIGNING HIS CHAIRMANSHIP of the House Ways and Means Committee, BUT MERELY TAKING A "LEAVE OF ABSENCE".
Meanwhile, Rangel and Pelosi both come from districts with "safe" demographics, so they can do just about anything and get reelected time and again.
Once the 2010 elections are over and his chairmanship can no longer be used for criticizing the ethics of the Democrats, Charlie Tax Cheat will be back in the Chairmanship if the Democrats retain the majority, ending his "leave of absence".
Meanwhile, WHAT IS GOING THROUGH THE MINDS OF THE VOTERS IN THE DISTRICTS OF PELOSI (CA), RANGEL (NY) and BARNEY FRANK (MA), that these three keep getting elected. These politicians are corrupt way above the common congressman and have acted for self-interest above all and have done enormous harm to the country pushing or blocking legislation to favor their special interests and personal friends or relatives. How can these three have "safe seats"? What is wrong with the people in those districts?
Why is it a surprise that Pelosi will NOT RISK ANTAGONIZING THE BLACK CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS (Rangel was a founder) by insisting on rapid hearings and severe sanctions for Charlie The Tax Cheat Rangel who has clearly committed a number of unethical, if not criminal, acts?
Rangel makes a meaningless gesture, NOT RESIGNING HIS CHAIRMANSHIP of the House Ways and Means Committee, BUT MERELY TAKING A "LEAVE OF ABSENCE".
Meanwhile, Rangel and Pelosi both come from districts with "safe" demographics, so they can do just about anything and get reelected time and again.
Once the 2010 elections are over and his chairmanship can no longer be used for criticizing the ethics of the Democrats, Charlie Tax Cheat will be back in the Chairmanship if the Democrats retain the majority, ending his "leave of absence".
Meanwhile, WHAT IS GOING THROUGH THE MINDS OF THE VOTERS IN THE DISTRICTS OF PELOSI (CA), RANGEL (NY) and BARNEY FRANK (MA), that these three keep getting elected. These politicians are corrupt way above the common congressman and have acted for self-interest above all and have done enormous harm to the country pushing or blocking legislation to favor their special interests and personal friends or relatives. How can these three have "safe seats"? What is wrong with the people in those districts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)