Archive for October, 2009

Even New York Times Pointing Out Democrats Lying Over Cost Of Obamacare

October 31, 2009

When the Gray Lady says that Democrats are lying, you can rest assured that they are not only lying, but lying their weaselly little heads off.

From the New York Times:

In a news release shortly before House Democrats held a rally to unveil the bill, Ms. Pelosi’s office wrote: “The legislation’s coverage cost will be $894 billion over 10 years, fully paid for.” And in her speech at the event, Ms. Pelosi said: “It reduces the deficits, meets President Obama’s call to keep the cost under $900 billion over 10 years, and it insures 36 million more Americans.”

But…

… a closer look at the budget office report suggests that the number everyone should have reported was $1.055 trillion, which is the gross cost of the insurance coverage provisions in the bill before taking account of certain new revenues, including penalties by individuals and employers who fail to meet new insurance requirements in the bill.

According to the budget office, the overall cost of the bill is more than offset by revenues from new taxes or cuts in spending by the government, resulting in a reduction in future budget deficits of $104 billion.

All of these figures cover a 10-year period from 2010 to 2019.

And how do Nancy Pelosi’s aid justify themselves?  By pointing out that, since Democrats in the Senate lied, House Democrats have a right to lie, too:

Aides to Ms. Pelosi defended their decision to focus on the $894 billion net figure. They also pointed out that in an “apples to apples” comparison — $1.055 trillion for the House bill vs. $829 billion for the Senate Finance measure — the House bill is projected to insure 7 million more people.

The cost of the health care legislation is incredibly significant these days.  It turns out that even Democrats are beginning to understand that -gasp – soaring deficits actually matter.

The fact of the matter is, the CBO – even when they’re trying to be honest – aren’t very good at counting the costs (which Jesus said was kind of important as a fundamental undertaking before starting something major).  The fact of the matter is that the government has historically underestimated the costs of their projects by an average factor of seven.  And some of their worst miscalculations of all have been in the category of health care.

The Wall Street Journal provided this handy-dandy little illustration of that sad history:

It’s certainly not the CBO’s fault, mind you.  Not when Democrats have been routinely and blatantly playing numbers shenanigans to hide the real costs of their massive government takeover from the American people.

Harry Reid actually made a staggering admission while trying to prevent the Democrat-special-interest-anathema tort reform.  He said:

HARRY REID: “He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn’t it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, were talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. Its a very small percent.”

[Youtube]

And I would love to bet any Democrat that the ultimate cost of this monstrosity will be far greater than $2 trillion.

The cost of the Democrats’ health care “change” will become yet another giant anchor stopping the forward momentum of our economy.  And as it leads to economic collapse, it will increasingly lead to medical rationing and the deaths of senior citizens by government-mandated medical neglect.

Update, November 2: Oops.  Did I say $1.055 trillion?  I’m sorry.  It’s now $1.2 trillion.

The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week costs $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget experts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Barack Obama as a price tag for his reform plan

The actual deficit figure is dramatically higher.  For instance, we’re STILL waiting for the cuts in Medicare that Bill Clinton and the Democrats promised in 1993.  In fact, we’re STILL waiting for ANY cuts in Medicare.  So you can safely add a minimum of $500 billion to the actual deficit that Obamacare will create; because there is no way that Democrats will do what they are claiming they will do and slash the Medicare budget.

Sanity Prevails: Scozzafava Drops Out of NY-23 Race

October 31, 2009

A lot of conservative attention is focused on defeating the Democrats’ health care “reform” that would put one-sixth of the economy – and literally peoples’ very lives – under the domination of a partisan, corrupt, and power-hungry federal government.  And that is clearly a good goal.

But the best way to accomplish that end may very well be to secure victories in the three major races in 2009, and allow Democrats’ own fears to jar them back to common sense.

To that end, the news that Dede Scozzafava has dropped out of the race for the 23rd district in New York is welcome indeed.

“In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be. The reality that I’ve come to accept is that in today’s political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money—and as I’ve been outspent on both sides, I’ve been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record,” she said in a statement.

“It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican.”

Her decision came as a Siena Research Institute poll released Saturday confirmed that her support has all but collapsed over the last month. In her statement, Scozzafava acknowledged that while her name will continue to appear on the ballot, “victory is unlikely.”

The Siena poll conducted Oct. 27-29, in line with other recent polls, showed Democrat Bill Owens holding a razor-thin lead over Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman, 36 percent to 35 percent.

Scozzafava trailed far behind at 20 percent, with 9 percent of voters still undecided.

I take my hat of to Scozzafava.  She did the right thing for the right reasons.

What could have happened is my personal nightmare scenario, in which conservatives – who easily have the numbers to win – divide themselves rather than unite for the common good.

Obama won Virginia, won New Jersey, and won the New York 23rd district.  Now he is in danger of losing them all, standing as a strident referendum against his agenda.

Hopefully, the quite liberal Scozzafava’s example of withdrawing as the handwriting appears on the wall will be followed by other candidates running against Democrats — whether they be “Republican” or “Independent.”

The New York 23rd district is somewhat strange.  It hasn’t had a Democrat representative since the Civil War era, and yet Obama won it by 5 points in ’08.  The question in this race was clear: would Republicans be able to reassert control, or would Democrats use the momentum from the Obama election to take control?

One thing needs to be pointed out: one of the major reasons that Obama appointed John McHugh to become Secretary of the Army was so Democrats would be able to seize his district from the Republican Party.  Obama won the district in 2008, and the White House believed New Yorkers would say, “Yes, we can!” to Democrat rule.

Time Magazine had this to say:

But then, the race in the 23rd is no longer about local issues. It’s about a Republican Party with little power in the Beltway searching for a way out of the wilderness. And it’s about conservative Republicans sending a message: the future of the party is the conservative base. (It’s also, incidentally, about money; according to the Federal Election Commission, more than $650,000 has flowed to the candidates from independent groups just since Oct. 24.) “The 23rd has as little significance as Gettysburg. It’s just where the armies met,” says Bob Gorman, managing editor of the Daily Times and my old boss. “Everybody was looking for a fight, and that’s where they found each other.”

Well, it turns out that Lincoln’s Union defeated the Democrats’ Confederates at Gettysburg — and the Party that fought to preserve the union ended up winning the war against the Party that wanted to radically change it.

After Lincoln prevailed at Gettysburg, he was able to turn his attention to taking the war to the enemy in the South.  Gettysburg – that little nowhere locale – was the turning point.

I see such a turning point again.

Virginia, and now NY-23 (thanks to Dede Scazzofava’s doing the right thing), are now locks for the Republicans.  And I believe that Chris Christie will hang on to defeat Jon Corzine in the Democrat bastion of New Jersey.

No one can say with confidence what’s going to happen in the race for the New Jersey governorship, but I believe that Scott Rasmussen – who was the most accurate pollster in the 2008 election – will prove right again.  He has Christie up by 3.

Frankly, the right thing for independent candidate Chris Daggett to do is put the interest of the country over his own interest and do the right thing as Dede Scazzofava did.  Scazzofava dropped out to help push an independent over the top; it’s time that independent Daggett did the same to push a Republican over the top.

Ronald Reagan correctly pointed out that conservatives could not win if they divided against themselves.  It’s time we get back to basics and take his advice.

If you think that Chris Daggett staying in the race with his 8% support is more important than stopping the Democrat juggernaut’s drive to impose socialized medicine, then please don’t call yourself a “conservative.”

Dede Scozzafava was liberal on a whole host of positions, and incredibly, she was even more liberal than the Democrat candidate on many issues.  But I have a lot more respect for her integrity and character than I do Chris Daggett if he doesn’t put himself aside and put his weight behind the most conservative candidate who has a chance to win.  I can only hope that Daggett will demonstrate his own character and willingness to put the interests of the nation ahead of his own, and drop out and put his support behind Chris Christie.

What’s at stake in these races is whether we embolden Democrats to pass a liberal domestic agenda, or let them know that they will do so at their gravest peril.

It is widely believed that if Obama loses these races, Democrats will quit following him and start looking to their own political survival.  That will derail Obamacare; it will derail Cap-and-trade; it will put the kibosh on a whole host of incredibly destructive Democrat agendas.

If you are a Glenn Beck-style “conservative independent,” please realize that.

Obama Continues To Resort To Fabrication To Pimp His Porkulus

October 30, 2009

It would be nice if the Obama administration got its narrative straight.  Christine Romer, the chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, says that the stimulus pretty much had all the effect it’s going to have.  And while she’s saying that, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is proclaiming that the stimulus was designed with a two-year horizon and that “half that effect is still ahead of us.”  Maybe they could get together and cook their story.

It wouldn’t hurt if the White House got its basic facts straight, while they were at it.

From the AP, in an article entitled, “Stimulus Watch: Stimulus Jobs Overstated In Report”:

WASHINGTON – The White House is promising that new figures being released Friday will be a more accurate showing of progress in President Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan. It aggressively defended an earlier, faulty count that overstated by thousands the jobs created or saved so far.

Ed DeSeve, serving as Obama’s stimulus overseer, said the administration has been working for weeks to correct mistakes in early counts that identified more than 30,000 jobs paid for with stimulus money. He said a new stimulus report Friday should correct many mistakes an Associated Press review found that showed the earlier report overstated thousands of stimulus jobs.

“I think you’ll see a pretty good degree of accuracy,” DeSeve said in an interview.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs downplayed errors in job counts identified by the AP’s review, telling reporters, “We’re talking about 4,000, or a 5,000 error.”

The AP reviewed a sample of federal contracts, not all 9,000 reported to date, and discovered errors in one in six jobs credited to the $787 billion stimulus program — or 5,000 of the 30,000 jobs claimed so far.

Even in its limited review, the AP found job counts that were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of paid positions; jobs credited to the stimulus program that were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs that were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

For example:

• Some recipients of stimulus money used the cash to give existing employees pay raises, but each reported saving dozens of jobs with the money, including one Florida day care that claimed 129 jobs saved.

• A Texas contractor whose business kept 22 employees to handle stimulus contracts saw its job count inflated to 88 because the same workers were counted four times.

• The water department in Palm Beach County, Fla., hired 57 meter readers, customer service representatives and other positions to handle two water projects. But their total job count was incorrectly doubled to 114.

Those errors were included in an early progress report on the stimulus released two weeks ago that featured numerous mistakes, including a Colorado business’ claim that its stimulus contract created more than 4,200 jobs. TeleTech Government Solutions actually hired 4,231 temporary workers for its stimulus project, but most of them worked for five weeks or less and the others no more than five months, company president Mariano Tan said.

The short-term positions should have been reported as 635 full-time, 40-hour-a-week jobs under the government’s method of calculating stimulus work, Tan said.

Now, first of all, stop and contemplate the farce that is going on here.  We have lost 3 million jobs since Obama bluffed and pandered his generational theft act through Congress.  And they are touting 30,000 jobs as a success?  I mean, 30,000 jobs created or saved is a massive failure on its face.  And then it turns out that even many of those 30,000 jobs are bogus.

Obama promised his Wreckovery Act would create 3 million new jobs.  The fact that he now has to play games to create the illusion that he “saved” or created a minuscule 30 thousand jobs is a screaming testimony to what a failure Obama has truly been.

The White House, according to media reports, is blasting the Associated Press for exposing this new Obama administration fabrication.  I guess they’re not a “legitimate news agency,” either.

The Obama administration has been pumping sunshine (a polite synonym for “lying”) practically since the day their porkulus generational theft act was passed back in February.  That was when Obama officials falsely promised the country that they would be able to keep unemployment below 8% if we gave them their stimulus.  Even liberals are increasingly acknowledging that Obama has been a total bust at job creation.

Obama now has a documented history of fallacious expectations and highly selective cherry-picking of “facts”.  It is par for the course for a president who only knows how to campaign, rather than to lead or to actually solve problems.

And nothing has been more completely fraudulent that their repeated attempts to argue that their Wreckovery Act created jobs.

The reality is that the European leaders who predicted government stimulus would fail to improve the economy were right, and Obama was wrong.  There is a clear correlation between stimulus money and unemployment, but it isn’t the kind of correlation Obama wanted: the more spending by government, the higher the unemployment rate.

We’re told that the economy grew by an annual rate of 3.5% last quarter, and that this signals the recession may be over.  But there’s a little factoid that needs to be understood, namely:

Economists forecast the nation’s total output grew at an annual rate of 3.3 percent between July and September, after contracting for a record four straight quarters. That growth has been fueled by a huge influx of government cash, including a temporary tax credit for first-time homeowners and a $1.25 trillion Federal Reserve program to keep mortgage rates low.

In other words, the GDP grew, my hind end.  Rather, the government spent a ton of money, the result of which was to artificially pump up the economy.  It’s the equivalent of borrowing a ton of money you don’t have to buy a car you can’t afford in order to impress your neighbors.  Only it’s Obama instead of you, and it’s trillions of dollars rather than thousands.

As a result of this fraud, the administration can pump up a number.  But the reality is very different.  Consumer confidence “unexpectedly” dropped in October just as we’re entering the critical Holiday shopping season, meaning the American people aren’t falling for the ruse.  And new home sales took an “unexpected” dump into the toilet to throw a bucketful of cold water into the face of anyone naive enough to buy the myth that we’re going to rise above our housing market woes.

As a result of too many partisan political shenanigans over too long a time, most Americans – by a solid 52% to 36% majority – believe that Obama has the country on the wrong track.

I would submit that a little more honesty, and a lot less bullpuckey, would go a long way.

‘Paranormal TAXivity’: The Democrat Disaster Movie That Will Cost $3.5 Trillion To Make

October 29, 2009

Coming this Halloween, and sticking around to haunt the United States and the American people for decades afterward if it passes, a movie so terrifying it should have you running to the phone to call your Congressman:

[Youtube]

Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers, and Jason Voorhees can’t really hurt you; they’re not real.  But Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are genuine real-life vampires who will suck you dry to feed their gigantic monster government.

Majority Of Americans Say Country Under Obama On Wrong Track

October 29, 2009

We keep getting news about how the economy is recovering, but we keep losing jobs.  Now we’re told that the GDP grew 3.5% last quarter, but buried in the middle paragraphs we’re told that the reason GDP increased is because of all the trillions of dollars of government spending propping up a hollowed-out shell of an economy that is ready to implode.

Most Americans don’t seriously follow the news, or know the facts.  But they are increasingly coming to the conclusion that something is wrong.

For First Time Under Obama, Majority Says U.S. Is on Wrong Track — by Bruce Drake, October 27, 2009

While the stock market has picked up and the country appears to be pulling out of the recession, a majority of Americans – for the first time in the Obama presidency – says the U.S. is headed down the wrong track, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted Oct. 22-25.

// Fifty-two percent say the country is on the wrong track compared to 36 percent who say it is headed in the right direction with 9 percent saying conditions are mixed and 3 percent undecided. While there have been pluralities saying the U.S. is on the wrong track in four of the previous five WSJ/NBC polls during Obama’s presidency, this is the first time the number broke 50 percent. The one month where that was not true was April when 43 percent said things were on the right track and an equal number said they were going in the opposite direction.

President Obama’s job approval rating stands at 51 percent, the same number it had been during the previous two months.

But the approval ratio for his handling of the economy has dipped from 51 in September to 47 percent in October. Forty-nine percent are very dissatisfied with the state of the economy and another 31 percent are somewhat dissatisfied. Seventeen percent are somewhat satisfied and only 2 percent are very satisfied.

The only thing Barack Obama has done well is demonize George Bush.

We didn’t elect a president who would lead us into the future; we elected a president who would keep pointing back at the past and demagoguery his predecessor.  Leaders don’t constantly blame their predecessors, as Barack Obama and his White House are constantly doing; rather they assess the situation, recognize the problem, and move the country forward.

People are starting to get that.

No Abortion Funding In Health Care: Yet ANOTHER Liberal Lie Exposed

October 28, 2009

Barack Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary – just as one of numerous examples – assured the public that there was no public funding for abortion in the Democrats’ health care plan.  From McClatchy:

WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius pledged Sunday that President Barack Obama will support barring public funding for abortion in any health care overhaul legislation.

“That’s exactly what the president said and I think that’s what he intends, that the bill he signs will do,” she said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Abortion policy has been an ongoing concern throughout the health care debate. In July, the House Energy and Commerce Committee attempted to compromise on abortion funding as it wrote its version of the health care bill.

An organization that tends to run Democrat that calls itself “Factcheck.org” asked back in August:

Will health care legislation mean “government funding of abortion”?

President Obama said Wednesday that’s “not true” and among several “fabrications” being spread by “people who are bearing false witness.” But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim. “President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component” of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?

An article from The Hill, dated yesterday, exposes “which side is right” for any who has eyes and at least half a brain:

Mich. Democrat: Pelosi ‘not happy with me’
By Bob Cusack – 10/27/09 01:30 PM ET

Rep. Bart Stupak said Speaker Pelosi is not pleased with his effort to change abortion-related provisions in the healthcare bill being crafted by the House.

During an interview on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” show, Stupak (D-Mich.) said he is undeterred in trying to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions. Stupak, who opposes abortion rights, acknowledged that some in his party are upset with his public campaign to change the bill.

“The Speaker is not happy with me,” Stupak said.

The Energy and Commerce subcommittee chairman said he has been working with Democratic leaders on a compromise, but they haven’t been able to strike a deal. Stupak pointed out that he and Democratic leaders have a fundamental disagreement on whether health plans that receive subsidies from the government should be allowed to provide coverage options on abortions.

Stupak wants a vote on the House floor to strike the language, and predicts he would have the votes to pass such an amendment.

“This has been federal law since 1976,” he said, noting that President Barack Obama has vowed not to allow healthcare reform to pay for abortions.

Democrat Stupak points out that “Obama has vowed not to allow healthcare reform to pay for abortions.”  But he sure isn’t telling Nancy Pelosi or Democrats that he won’t sign any bill that contains such language.  And – and this is an IQ test – do you really think that Obama would veto his coveted health care bill if it did not contain provisions to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortion?  Really?

Keep in mind, Obama is a guy who loudly promised that he wouldn’t sign an Omnibus that contained earmarks, before signing one that contained 9,000 earmarks.  From the AP:

Despite campaign promises to take a machete to lawmakers’ pet projects, President Barack Obama is quietly caving to funding nearly 8,000 of them this year, drawing a stern rebuke Monday from his Republican challenger in last fall’s election.

And, yeah, the actual number turned out to be “nearly 9,000,” rather than 8,000.

And if that wasn’t bad enough, Obama HIMSELF was one of the porkers whose name was on the list of earmarkers:

Funny how items show up in spending bills without any notice — like an earmark for a president who promised not to seek any.

President Obama, who took a no-earmark pledge on the campaign trail, is listed as one of dozens of cosponsors of a $7.7 million set-aside in the fiscal 2009 omnibus spending bill passed by the House on Wednesday.

I think I can rest my case: if the ObamaCare bill has funding for abortion, Obama will break yet another promise and sign it.  Pinocchio, in the longest-nosed day of his life, was more honest than Barack Obama.

And it’s the same with death panels (and see here, and see here, and see here), or with coverage for illegal immigrants, or with the demonizing of private health insurance companies, or with the fact that Democrats will make the middle class pay taxes to finance their health care takeover, or any of the other blatant lies that Democrats keep telling.

Don’t trust them.  They are documented liars.  And they will continue to lie to impose their takeover of one-sixth of the economy.

Contrary To Obama Democrats’ Demagogic Lies About Private Insurerer Profits

October 28, 2009

Do you want to have one-sixth of the economy – and literally life and death decisions – to be taken over based on lies and demagoguery?  If not, you’d better start calling your elected officials and demanding that Democrats finally start dealing with facts rather than demagogic lies.

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON — In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making “immoral” and “obscene” returns while “the bodies pile up.”

But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. Ledgers tell a different reality.

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would “keep insurance companies honest,” says President Barack Obama.

The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

The insurers may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

A look at some claims, and the numbers:

THE CLAIMS:

_“I’m very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers’ “obscene profits.”

_“Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed.” Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

_”Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe.” A MoveOn.org ad.

THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better — drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That’s a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry’s overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

Half of Americans are actually covered by not-for-profit insurers.

A pro-liberal, pro-government universal health care proponent has the following:

But this is not “change.” Nonprofit organizations have always had an important role in the financing and delivery of health care services in the United States. Nonprofit health care organizations are part of the U.S. economy’s “third sector,” the other two sectors are government and for-profit businesses. In the early 1900s the first health care prepayment/insurance plan was founded as a nonprofit organization—Blue Cross—by a nonprofit hospital in Texas. Today, nearly 50 percent of people with private health insurance coverage are enrolled in nonprofit health plans.

Unfortunately, the strong and persistent presence of private nonprofit health insurance companies has not prevented any of the structural problems leading to our current health care crisis.

So the Democrats are deceitfully and demagogically claiming that insurance companies are the villains due to their “excessive” and “immoral” profits when in fact they DON’T have such profits – and HALF of them are NON-PROFITS – and they are offering a “solution” to a problem which isn’t even part of the problem to begin with.

I’m sorry to have to point out that what the Democrats are doing is right out of Adolf Hitler’s and Joseph Goebbels’ playbook, but it is.  They are telling lies about innocent companies.  They are deceitfully trying to create villains using propaganda and demagoguery so that they can then impose their “final solution” onto one-sixth of the national economy.

The clearest one sentence explanation of the result of the Democrats’ health care agenda comes from the mouth of Obama economic adviser Robert Reich:

“… So we’re going to let you die.”

The so-called “crazy claims” about death panels turn out to be all too real.

Democrats claim that you can keep your private health insurance if you want to.  It’s a lie.  And they know it’s a lie.

Their real goal is to put health care under total government control, so that they have the power to reward their allies and punish their opponents.  They are using their current legislation as a backdoor to universal, socialized, government-controlled health care.  And again, when they say that isn’t true, their own words reveal their lies.

Right now, Democrats are trying to take over life and death decisions.  And they are the documented liars.  Trust them at your peril.

The Nuclear Option: Will Yet ANOTHER Obama Promise Go Up In Smoke?

October 27, 2009

It is amazing how many promises Barack Obama has broken since taking office.  The man literally began his presidential path with a lie, having promised on Meet the Press not to run for the White House, but to finish out his Senate term.

Obama has a huge documented record of liesGoing back for years.  And he has taken his deceit train to healthcare land.

Looks like you can add another lie to the list.

From Freedom’s Lighthouse:

Here is audio of Barack Obama as a candidate in 2007 where he said flatly “we are not going to pass universal health care with a fifty plus one strategy.” Obama said “you can’t govern” if you go about things in that way.

But now, of course, the Democrats are contemplating the use of just such a “Nuclear Option” to ram ObamaCare through.

Go to Freedom’s Lighthouse where the audio is embedded.  Or click on the link here to hear yet another Democrat health care lie.

Don’t Think ObamaCare Won’t Be A Giant Black Hole Of Debt

October 27, 2009

You will be hearing about the Democrats “paying” for their health care takeover.  Don’t believe it.  Again and again and again, Democrats have sold one health care boondoggle after another, claiming that it will “only” cost such-and-so.  They have a perfect track record — of failure to live up to their claims.

Health Costs and History
Government programs always exceed their spending estimates.

Washington has just run a $1.4 trillion budget deficit for fiscal 2009, even as we are told a new health-care entitlement will reduce red ink by $81 billion over 10 years. To believe that fantastic claim, you have to ignore everything we know about Washington and the history of government health-care programs. For the record, we decided to take a look at how previous federal forecasts matched what later happened. It isn’t pretty.

Let’s start with the claim that a more pervasive federal role will restrain costs and thus make health care more affordable. We know that over the past four decades precisely the opposite has occurred. Prior to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health-care inflation ran slightly faster than overall inflation. In the years since, medical inflation has climbed 2.3 times faster than cost increases elsewhere in the economy. Much of this reflects advances in technology and expensive treatments, but the contrast does contradict the claim of government as a benign cost saver.

Next let’s examine the record of Congressional forecasters in predicting costs.  Start with Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that its first-year costs would be $238 million. Instead it hit more than $1 billion, and costs have kept climbing.

Thanks in part to expansions promoted by California’s Henry Waxman, a principal author of the current House bill, Medicaid now costs 37 times more than it did when it was launched—after adjusting for inflation. Its current cost is $251 billion, up 24.7% or $50 billion in fiscal 2009 alone, and that’s before the health-care bill covers millions of new beneficiaries.

Medicare has a similar record. In 1965, Congressional budgeters said that it would cost $12 billion in 1990. Its actual cost that year was $90 billion. Whoops.  The hospitalization program alone was supposed to cost $9 billion but wound up costing $67 billion.  These aren’t small forecasting errors. The rate of increase in Medicare spending has outpaced overall inflation in nearly every year (up 9.8% in 2009), so a program that began at $4 billion now costs $428 billion.

The Medicare program for renal disease was originally estimated in 1973 to cover 11,000 participants. Today it covers 395,000, at a cost of $22 billion. The 1988 Medicare home-care benefit was supposed to cost $4 billion by 1993, but the actual cost was $10 billion, because many more people participated than expected. This is nearly always the case with government programs because their entitlement nature—accepting everyone who meets the age or income limits—means there’s no fixed annual budget.

One of the few health-care entitlements that has come in well below the original estimate is the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill. Those costs are now about one-third below the original projections, according to the Medicare actuaries. Part of the reason is lower than expected participation by seniors and savings from generic drugs.

But as White House budget director Peter Orszag told Congress when he ran the Congressional Budget Office, the “primary cause” of these cost savings is that “the pricing is coming in better than anticipated, and that is likely a reflection of the competition that’s occurring in the private market.” The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services agrees, stating that “the drug plans competing for Medicare beneficiaries have been able to establish greater than expected savings from aggressive price negotiation.” It adds that when given choices “beneficiaries have overwhelmingly selected less costly drug plans.”

Yet liberal Democrats fought that private-competition model (preferring government drug price controls), just as they are trying to prevent private health plans from competing across state borders now.

The lesson here is that spending on nearly all federal benefit programs grows relentlessly once they are established. This history won’t stop Democrats bent on ramming their entitlement into law. But every Member who votes for it is guaranteeing larger deficits and higher taxes far into the future. Count on it.

You should notice the bit about the prescription drug benefit passed under Bush, because Democrats have routinely demonized it.  They claim that Republicans didn’t even TRY to pay for it, but merely increased the deficit.  That is for the most part true, but at least it a) relied upon the private sector to provide the benefit, and b) didn’t socialize the entire economy in the process.  Democrats argue that, unlike Republicans with the prescription drug benefit, they are trying to “pay” for their plan.  Just as right now I am flapping my arms and trying to fly out of my chair.

As much as Democrats want to demonize the Bush prescription drug benefit, it remains the anomaly as being the ONLY government health care program that ran under budget, as opposed to ten times budget.

We can’t allow the Medicare system to collapse, as it is on the verge of doing.  Too many elderly people who don’t have recourse to anything else are counting on it.  But the gigantic hole of red ink is proof that we never should have started this program until we truly counted the cost.  Had the government not foisted Medicare upon us, the private market would have solved the problem better.

Anybody who thinks we can save one giant government program by creating an even more giant government program is a fool.  It is the mindset of one who believes the best way to get out of a hole is to dig deeper and faster.

The health care plan that the Democrats are envisioning will be a FAR greater black hole of debt than anything this country has ever seen.  Because it is FAR more ambitious, involves FAR more people, and involves a FAR greater takeover of the US economy.

And, incredibly, the Democrats are literally using the argument of the skyrocketing deficit to enact something that will massively increase our deficits.

Their mindset is the same mindset that deals with our exploding debts by constantly raising the debt ceiling so we can keep on borrowing and borrowing and borrowing.  That fixes the problem, doesn’t it?

We are facing the largest federal deficits since World War II.  That should really scare you, because in World War II, it was AMERICANS who held that debt by purchasing war bonds.  Back then, Americans actually saved their money.  Quite different from these days, when we routinely go into debt to buy a lot of crap that we don’t need.  Today it is CHINA who holds our debt.  So as we begin to contemplate the $800 billion a year in interest payments that we will soon be paying, we realize that we are no longer our own masters.

If that isn’t bad enough, consider this: at the end of World War II, the United States had the greatest manufacturing and industrial base the world had ever seen.  Today, we have only a tiny fraction of that former capability.  In addition to being a debtor nation, we are also a “service” nation.  You don’t spend your way out of debt; you don’t even service your way out of debt.  You produce your way out of debt.  We have long since lost the capability to do that.

Finally, the debts accrued during World War II were debts that were a) necessary and b) temporary.  That, also, is no longer true today.  Our World War II debts were the result of our war of necessity against the greatest evil humankind had ever seen; the debts we are experiencing today are the result of our war against our children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children as we demand more and more benefits at somebody’s else’s expense.

As a result of American power following World War II, the U.S. dollar became the fundamental world currency, and English became the official lingua franca of the global economy.  Tragically, as a result of the rapid American collapse, the U.S. dollar is now on the verge of being expunged from the global stage, and English is increasingly not being spoken even in America.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 535 other followers