Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
Q: What kind of tax breaks does the U.S. give to oil companies and to corporations that send jobs overseas?
A: Companies with overseas subsidiaries can keep their income untaxed by the IRS if they don’t transfer that revenue back to the U.S. Oil and gas companies received tax breaks and subsidies from a 2005 energy bill, but the bill led to a net tax increase for them.
FULL QUESTION:
When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?
FULL ANSWER:
It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:
Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.
Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.
Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.
But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.
We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.
Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.
Oil Company Tax Breaks?
Both leading Democratic candidates have referred to tax breaks to oil companies:
Clinton, July 23, 2007: First of all, I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies, which have gotten much greater under Bush and Cheney.
Obama, June 22, 2007: In the face of furious lobbying, Congress brushed aside incentives for the production of more renewable fuels in favor of more tax breaks for the oil and gas companies.
Both candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.
Which is to say that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were dishonest pandering liars in 2008 and both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to remain pandering liars to this day.
Note that to whatever extent oil companies get “tax breaks,” they got them in conjunction with a tax policy that takes more away than it gives them. Some “break.” And I would personally enjoy it very much if every Democrat got the same kind of “break” the oil companies got where we give them a free monocle just before we gouge one of their eyes out. Oh, and then afterward I could demand that we take the monocle back.
President Obama said Saturday he can’t do much to lower gas prices, and renewed his call for Congress to end tax breaks for oil companies.
“The truth is, the price of gas depends on a lot of factors that are often beyond our control,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly address. “Unrest in the Middle East can tighten global oil supply. Growing nations like China or India adding cars to the road increases demand.”
The president didn’t mention one of the few direct actions he could take to try to lower gas prices in the short term — releasing oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Mr. Obama called for that solution as a candidate in 2008 when gasoline prices neared $4 per gallon, and he reportedly discussed the option earlier this week with British Prime Minister David Cameron.
Instead, Mr. Obama said his administration is cracking down on oil profits — on traders who “distort the price of oil, and make big profits for themselves at your expense.” And he called on Congress again to eliminate $4 billion in annual tax breaks for oil companies.
“Your member of Congress should be fighting for you,” Mr. Obama said. “Not for big financial firms. Not for big oil companies.”
A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service last year found that eliminating the subsidies would likely result in higher gas prices in the short term.
The address was the president’s second speech on gas prices and energy in three days. Public opinion polls are showing that the president’s job-approval rating, on the rise earlier in this election year, has dipped again as gas prices have risen. Retail prices on Friday rose a penny to a national average of $3.83 per gallon.
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has pledged to enact policies that he said should lower gasoline prices to $2.50, a notion that Mr. Obama scoffs at.
“It’s easy to promise a quick fix when it comes to gas prices,” the president said in his address. “There just isn’t one. Anyone who tells you otherwise — any career politician who promises some three-point plan for two-dollar gas — they’re not looking for a solution. They’re just looking for your vote.”
In 2008, Mr. Obama stood in front of a gas station near Indianapolis and pledged to “take steps to reduce the price of oil.” He focused on long-term actions such as increasing fuel efficiency standards and promoting clean energy, which he has done as president.
“I will work to solve this energy crisis once and for all,” he said at the time.
And let me repeat: Barack Obama is a lying weasel.
Do you notice that the same dishonest liar who said, “I will work to solve this energy crisis once and for all” – and the same dishonest lying demagogue who attacked George Bush for gas prices when they were less than what they are now under Obama’s regime – is now saying, “It’s easy to promise a quick fix when it comes to gas prices.” He should know – given all the damn quick fixes this lying hypocrite promised when he was lying and demagoguing his way into the White House.
For those of you who are more intelligent than a rodent (i.e. for those of you who don’t vote Democrat), let me ask you a question: if Obama increases taxes on oil companies, just why in the hell do you not think that the oil companies won’t pass those taxes right on to your dumb ass in the form of higher gasoline prices??? Which is another way of pointing out that not only does Obama want you to pay more for your gasoline, but he thinks you’re a complete idiot, too.
It’s past time for you to swing by the neck from your own damn noose, Obama you little weasel.
Economy: President Obama says he wants businesses to “step up” and hire more. If he’s really sincere about wanting more jobs, he should stop demonizing and punishing American corporations for their success.
‘Companies … (are) making a lot of money,” President Obama told a town hall meeting Thursday, “and now’s the time for them to start betting on American workers and American products.”
But the fact they’re not “betting” more isn’t their fault. It’s Obama’s — and his Democrat allies in Congress. Their tax-and-spend policies have pushed our nation to the brink of financial ruin, creating uncertainty and an unstable investment environment for companies.
The president let his true feelings slip later Thursday, telling a laid-off government worker there’s “nothing more important” than working for the government. He then blamed “huge layoffs” in government for our current job ills. So why do businesses have to “step up”?
There are, as a matter of record, 418,000 more government jobs today than when the recession began, as noted by the National Review’s Jim Geraghty. And face it, government “jobs” are mostly a waste, far below the private sector in productivity.
Even so, Democrats have in recent weeks implied repeatedly that companies are somehow unpatriotic for refusing to invest the $2 trillion in cash on their books.
But what sane company would invest at a time when it’s in the government’s greedy cross hairs? Or when both the White House and Congress repeatedly criticize “millionaires and billionaires,” and threaten to crush small businesses — the engines of job growth — with higher taxes and new regulations?
As Obama spoke about jobs Thursday, oil CEOs were being grilled by Senate Democrats at a hostile hearing. Their crime? They’re making fat profits. Time was, profits were a sign of success. Today, far-left Democrats think “profit” is a dirty word.
For the record, oil companies’ profits are up because oil prices have soared. This isn’t due to “speculators,” but to the White House’s foolish policy of keeping hundreds of millions of barrels of offshore oil off-limits — driving up prices and boosting foreign dependence.
Instead, the White House subsidizes money-losing alternative energy sources, none of which is ready to replace our current energy supply. Prices can only go up.
Then there’s Boeing, one of America’s great companies. It wants to open a $2 billion factory in South Carolina, creating thousands of new jobs. A cause for celebration by the White House? Hardly.
The National Labor Relations Board has charged Boeing with a labor-law violation because South Carolina is one of 22 right-to-work states. If you look at which party gets union donations, you’ll understand why.
Fact is, we’re 7 million jobs short of where we were when the recession began, there are eight unemployed people for every job opening and, despite April’s gain of 244,000, we still aren’t creating new jobs fast enough.
Yet Obama & Co. continue to play games, destroying jobs and blaming others for the economic carnage.
I learned today that the oil companies receive 13% of the tax subsidies for the energy industry. And produce 67% of all the energy America uses. All the other energy sources combined – including all the “green” energy sources the left loves so much – receive 87% of the tax subsidies. Even though they produce only 33% of all the energy America uses. So Democrats want to drive the producers of two-thirds of our energy out of business and reward the remaining third of our energy with massive tax subsidy boondoggles.
And apparently businesses are supposed to say, “Hey, that’s brilliant! We need to climb on board THAT kind of brilliant-mobile!!!”
President Obama wants to cast some light on economic success stories in the shadows of a slow recovery. And he is looking to find some more.
On Friday, the president travels to Schenectady, N.Y., birthplace of the General Electric Co., to showcase a new GE deal with India and announce a restructured presidential advisory board to focus on increasing employment and competitiveness.
Obama is naming GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt as the head of a Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. The panel replaces Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which had been chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. Obama announced late Thursday that Volcker, as expected, was ending his tenure on the panel.
Then there’s the fact that G.E. has been a MASSIVE beneficiary of the Obama- and Democrat-imposed radical so-called “green” agenda:
On Sunday, NBC Universal launched its annual “Green Week,” as part of the company’s “Green is Universal” environmental awareness campaign.
As NBC embarks on yet another week of “environmentally themed programming,” it falls to media watchdogs to point out the massive conflict presented by NBC parent company General Electric’s significant financial interests in the policies “Green Week” indirectly advances.
GE stands to make millions from Democrats’ “clean energy” agenda. The company has invested massive amounts of money in technology that can only be profitable through government intervention or subsidization.
Put these two facts together and what do you get?
Now consider this, stupid, depraved fools (i.e., anyone who calls themselves a “Democrat” and says that evil corporate greed comes from Republicans:
General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.
The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.
Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.
While General Electric is one of the most skilled at reducing its tax burden, many other companies have become better at this as well. Although the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.
In a regulatory filing just a week before the Japanese disaster put a spotlight on the company’s nuclear reactor business, G.E. reported that its tax burden was 7.4 percent of its American profits, about a third of the average reported by other American multinationals. Even those figures are overstated, because they include taxes that will be paid only if the company brings its overseas profits back to the United States. With those profits still offshore, G.E. is effectively getting money back.
So we’ve got a giant mega-corporation whose top leadership is clearly in the pocket of the Democrat Party and which has clearly benefitted from the Democrat Party agenda.
And lo and behond, it turns out that not only do these piles of quivering un-American slime at GE not pay taxes, but Obama actually has the naked chutzpah to reach into the American people’s pocket and say, “We owe you this, Mr. Immelt.”
Now, this would be loathsome and indefensible enough it GE was a rightwing corporation. But understand that Democrats are continually demonizing Republicans as being “the party of corporate greed” when in fact THEY are the real winners at the corporate greed game.
Democrats calling Republicans “corporate shills” is like Yassar Arafat calling Ronald Reagan “anti-Jew”; the label only works if you are an idiot on every level imaginable.
Here’s one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.
The greater Congress’ ability to grant favors and take one American’s earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There’s no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.
And guess what? As soon as Democrats took over Congress that’s exactly what they did: they criminalized incandescent light bulbs and made GE’s mercury-laden CFL bulbs the “Big Brother” alternative.
GE gave $20 million to Democrats. But don’t worry, Democrats took money right out of your and your children and grandchildren’s pockets to pay back their corporate pals with their usual array of shennanigans.
And the only thing that is more despicable than that is that all the while they’re doing all this, Democrats are constantly demonizing Republicans.
Hypocrisy is the quintessential defining essense of liberalism. Pure and simple.
“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”
Let’s examine this on a clause-by-clause basis and see how Obama has fared:
This was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick?Another way to put it is “This was the moment companies dropped their health care coverage so every sick person could one day lay helplessly in their own filth on Medicaid.”
(Fortune) — The great mystery surrounding the historic health care bill is how the corporations that provide coverage for most Americans — coverage they know and prize — will react to the new law’s radically different regime of subsidies, penalties, and taxes. Now, we’re getting a remarkable inside look at the options AT&T, Deere, and other big companies are weighing to deal with the new legislation.
Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill’s critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.
Good jobs for the jobless? How about any jobs whatsoever for the jobless? Unemployment was 7.6% when Bush left office. Obama promised it wouldn’t get over 8% because of his stimulus, but he lied. And now it’s 9.9% and unlikely to get much lower for a long time to come.
When the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal? Let me just say three words: Gulf of Mexico. The oceans are rising due to millions and millions of gallons of oil that Obama has done nothing to even slow down. I mean, my God: it took him like six weeks to even tell us that he was responsible.
Washington (CNN) — For the first time in nearly four years, a majority of Americans think that a terrorist attack is likely to occur somewhere in the United States in the next few weeks, according to a new national poll. . . .
Fifty-five percent of people questioned say an act of terrorism in the U.S. over the next few weeks is likely, up 21 points from last August. Forty-three percent said such an attack is not likely, down 21 points from August. . . .
The survey’s release comes one day after the Obama administration released its first National Security Strategy, a 52-page outline of the president’s strategic approach and priorities on battling terrorism.
And now here’s the very last one, tumbling into the toilet like the turd-in-chief is tumbling in the polls:
And restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. Here’s what Obama’s “restoration of America’s image” actually looks like:
TOKYO – Embattled Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said Wednesday he was resigning over his broken campaign promise to move a U.S. Marine base off the southern island of Okinawa.
The prime minister had faced growing pressure from within his own party to resign ahead of July’s upper house elections. His approval ratings had plummeted over his bungled handling of the relocation of the Marine Air Station Futenma, reinforcing his public image as an indecisive leader.
Or let me put it this way: “You have restored America’s image, Mister President Obama-san. We now revere your country as never before due to your most wonderful greatness. Now will you please take all your American crap and your American prestige and get the hell out of our country? It is only because we honor YOU so much, Obama-san, that we want America the hell out of Okinawa after being here for 65 years.”
“We had so much contempt for Bush – you see, we don’t even call him Bush-san – that we allowed America to remain during his presidency. It is only because of our profound and deep admiration of you that we are kicking your ass to the curb now, Obama-san. You are last, best, greatest hope on earth, Obama-san. Now please not to let door hit your skinny ass on way out.”
So let’s tally up: fail until we die of socialist health care, fail big time until our unemployment benefits run out, fail all over the Gulf of Mexico and likely all over Florida and then the East Coast, fail until we cut and run, fail while getting ready for the next massive terrorist attack, and, finally, fail ingloriously all over the world.
Let me try to paraphrase Obama’s speech above in a way that properly corrects the record:
I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to realize that we had the absolute suckiest president in our nation’s entire history at the very time we needed a good one the most.
Last night, the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released his long-awaited report on the Democrats’ health care spending bill. The report states, “[W]e estimate that overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion during calendar years 2010-2019. . . .” This was an assessment that was requested by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell prior to the final votes on health care in the House, but CMS told Republicans that they couldn’t complete an analysis in time for the vote. Given the report’s findings, it’s easy to see why Democrats decided to rush ahead with a vote before the report could be completed.Reporting on the CMS analysis last night, the AP wrote, “President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law will increase the nation’s health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation. A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls. But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs. It also warned that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15 percent of hospitals into the red and ‘possibly jeopardizing access’ to care for seniors.”
But in the run-up to the vote, indeed throughout the year-long debate on health care, Democrats and President Obama repeatedly insisted that their unpopular legislation would control costs and save the government money. In December, President Obama announced, “We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care. Families will save on their premiums. Businesses that will see their costs rise if we do nothing will save money now and in the future.” Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) insisted at the beginning of debate in the Senate, “The Republican Leader just a few moments ago says that this bill raises costs. With all due respect to my good friend from Kentucky, that statement is false.” And Democrats repeatedly cited a CBO report saying that if all the Medicare cuts are implemented, the bill could save $130 billion over the next decade. This was pointed to by everyone from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to rank-and-file House Democrats like Ohio Rep. John Boccieri.
But as the AP story explains, “The [CMS] report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade. ‘During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage,’ wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary. ‘Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare … reductions is doubtful.’”
As Sen. McConnell said when President Obama signed the health care bill, “Most Americans out there aren’t celebrating today. . . . People oppose this bill not because they don’t know what’s in it, but because they know exactly what’s in it. . . . They know you don’t have to slash Medicare by half a trillion dollars to get lower premiums. . . . People know you won’t save money on health care by spending another $2.6 trillion on health care. . . . They know you don’t reduce the deficit by creating a massive new government program that even Democrats have described as a Ponzi scheme. They know you can go a long ways towards doing all these things without creating a brand new entitlement at a time when we can’t even cover the cost of the entitlements we have.”
Once again, studies by neutral observers have shown that Democrats’ claims about their health care bill just do not match reality. This was a flawed bill rushed through because Democrats wanted to “make history.” But Americans know better. At a time of record deficits and debt, this irresponsible health spending bill should be repealed and replaced with legislation that actually addresses health care costs.
All one has to do is look at Obama’s plunging polls in the aftermath of the passage of ObamaCare to verify that the American people did not want and do not want this “boondogglization” of the American health care system. Polls across the board show Obama’s approval plunging dramatically since health care “reform” was shoved down the nation’s throat: Quinnipiac has Obama’s approval at a lowest-ever-measured 44% – with a majority disapproving of him; top-pollster Rasmussen has Obama at only 47% – with a whopping 52% disapproving of him; and the RCP average has Obama WELL below a 50% approval. Barack Obama is no longer in any way speaking for or representing the American people.
I can go on. For example, I can talk about how his administration promised up and down that the $787 billion (subsequently massively upwardly revised to $862 billion) stimulus – which will actually cost $3.27 TRILLION – would keep unemployment under 8%. Obama sold a massive lie to sell a massive porkulus. And now we’re paying for a fat pile of lies.
Now we find out that this fundamental liar told yet another massive, fundamental lie.
“I pledged that I will not sign health insurance reform — as badly as I think it’s necessary, I won’t sign it if that reform adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade — and I mean what I say.”
You loathsome, vile LIAR.
You said whatever you thought you needed to say to get the American people to jump into bed with you. Then you raped them. And then moved on to the next lie and rape. And the next lie and rape after that.
Now, you think this is terrible news about the terrible ObamaCare power-grab? You aint seen NOTHING yet. Have a gander at this:
Not one of its major programs has gotten started, and already the wheels are starting to come off of Obamacare. The administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn’t passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them.
The White House is trying to spin the new report from Medicare’s chief actuary Richard Foster as only half bad because it concludes that, while costs will increase, only 23 million people will remain uninsured (instead of 24 million previously estimated).
But looking at the details of Foster’s report shows the many, many danger signs for Obamacare and how many of its promises will be broken:
1. People losing coverage: About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.
2. Huge fines for companies: Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance.
3. Higher costs for consumers: Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.
4. A program created to fail: The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”
5. Spending increases: Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.
6. “Free-riders”: An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty. 7. Spending reductions are fiction: Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.” 8.You can’t keep your doctor: Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.
9.Coverage but no care: A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.
This is an objective report by administration actuaries that shows this sweeping legislation has serious, serious problems.
And there’s more: Joint Economic Committee Republicans explain in a new report the impact of a rarely mentioned $14.3 billion per year tax on health insurance, effective in 2014. They find this tax will be mostly passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums for private coverage. It will cost the typical family of four with job-based coverage an additional $1,000 a year in higher premiums and will fall largely, and inequitably, on small businesses and their employees.
States are fighting back. The Florida legislature voted Thursday to place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would ban any laws that compel someone to “participate in any health care system.” It requires a 60 percent vote to succeed. The legislation is modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which has been introduced or announced in 42 states.
It just makes you want to cry. Fifteen percent of hospitals are going to close, tens of thousands of doctors will leave medicine, and yet millions of people are going to start swamping the healthcare rolls. If I wanted to destroy our healthcare system, that’s how I’d do it.
Boy, this ObamaCare deal just keeps looking better and better.
First, we see US corporations and businesses forced to take writedowns to the tune of billions of dollars of profits that would otherwise have gone into getting the economy out of recession and creating jobs. Why are they losing all this money? Because they committed the unpardonable sin of trying to give their retirees excellent private health care. The Democrats – whom we’ve been saying all along want to socialize the health care system – can’t be having that. So they took away the tax incentives that made providing such benefits worth doing for the companies.
That’s bad. That’s really bad. And anyone who is actually paying attention should be coming unglued that our new law of the land health care system is not only going to destroy American jobs, but American employee-based health care, too, all in one fell swoop.
But as it so often has been with Obama, it actually gets even worse:
Sell-off in US Treasuries raises sovereign debt fears Investors are braced for a further sell-off in US Treasuries after dramatic moves last week raised fears that the surfeit of US government debt is starting to saturate bond markets.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 9:06PM BST 28 Mar 2010
The yield on 10-year Treasuries – the benchmark price of global capital – surged 30 basis points in just two days last week to over 3.9pc, the highest level since the Lehman crisis. Alan Greenspan, ex-head of the US Federal Reserve, said the abrupt move may be “the canary in the coal mine”, a warning to Washington that it can no longer borrow with impunity. He said there is a “huge overhang of federal debt, which we have never seen before”.
David Rosenberg at Gluskin Sheff said Treasury yields have ratcheted up 90 basis points since December in a “destabilising fashion”, for the wrong reasons. Growth has not been strong enough to revive fears of inflation. Commodity prices peaked in January and US home sales have fallen for the last three months, pointing to a double-dip in the housing market.
Mr Rosenberg said the yield spike recalls the move in the spring of 2007 just as the credit system started to unravel. “The question is how the equity market is going to handle this back-up in rates,” he said.
The trigger for last week’s sell-off was poor demand at Treasury auctions, linked to the passage of the Obama health care reform. Critics say it will add $1 trillion (£670bn) to America’s debt over the next decade, a claim disputed fiercely by Democrats.
It is unclear whether China is selling US Treasuries after cutting its holdings for three months in a row, or what its motive may be. There are concerns that Beijing may be sending a coded message before the US Treasury rules next month on whether China is a “currency manipulator”, though experts say China is clearly still buying dollar assets because it is holding down the yuan against the greenback. Some investors may be selling Treasuries as a precaution against a trade spat.
Looming over everything is the worry that markets will not be able to absorb the glut of US debt as the Fed winds down its policy of bond purchases, starting with an exit from mortgage-backed securities. It currently holds a quarter of the $5 trillion of the MBS market.
The rise in US bond yields has set off mayhem in the 10-year US swaps markets. Spreads turned negative last week, touching the lowest level in 20 years. The effect was to drive credit costs for high-grade companies such as Berkshire Hathaway below that of the US government. This may have been a technical aberration.
Democrats can say whatever the hell they want, but people who AREN’T arrogant, incompetent, ignorant fools understand that ObamaCare is going to be to the US deficit what the HMS Titanic was to the cruise liner industry.
Let’s sum up the above article in bullet points. Stop me when I get to something that sounds like it ISN’T a complete unmitigated disaster in the making:
Investors are braced for a further sell-off in US Treasuries after dramatic moves last week raised fears that the surfeit of US government debt is starting to saturate bond markets
The yield on 10-year Treasuries – the benchmark price of global capital – surged 30 basis points in just two days last week to over 3.9pc, the highest level since the Lehman crisis
Alan Greenspan, ex-head of the US Federal Reserve, said the abrupt move may be “the canary in the coal mine”
there is a “huge overhang of federal debt, which we have never seen before”
Treasury yields have ratcheted up 90 basis points since December in a “destabilising fashion”, for the wrong reasons
the yield spike recalls the move in the spring of 2007 just as the credit system started to unravel
The trigger for last week’s sell-off was poor demand at Treasury auctions, linked to the passage of the Obama health care reform
Looming over everything is the worry that markets will not be able to absorb the glut of US debt
The rise in US bond yields has set off mayhem in the 10-year US swaps markets
Spreads turned negative last week, touching the lowest level in 20 years
We’re borrowing huge sums of money at a current rate of about 3% interest. But as the lenders start getting nervous, they’re going to want to increase that interest. We are in plenty of trouble paying these trillions of dollars back at 3% – but what happens if the interest increases to 5% or 7% as it could very quickly do? The costs of paying these loans would rise to catastrophic levels, and we could find ourselves literally bankrupt overnight.
And we’ve just jumped from 3 to 4 percent in a great big hurry.
Democrats are telling you this is all just so good. It’s good that the Democrats created the most gigantic and sweeping legislation in 60 years on a hard-core partisan vote. It’s good that said bill was shenaniganized to create the illusion that it was “deficit neutral” while in reality it will cost over $6 trillion dollars. It’s good that companies are going to lose billions of job-creating dollars as Democrats robbed every money-bag they could to fund their next boondoggle. It’s good that Obama is sending our deficit into the stratosphere while setting up a banana republic-style debt-to-GDP ratio. And, of course, it’s good that we’re seeing the value of our national holdings rapidly dissolving away.
You’re not that stupid, are you?
I mean, I have to ask: after all, you DID vote stupid when you elected Obama and loaded Congress with Democrats.
Before I go any further, let me point out that what I’m going to say isn’t just my personal opinion: it has the backing of 77% of investors, who correctly view President Barack Obama as “anti-business.”
Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) — U.S. investors overwhelmingly see President Barack Obama as anti-business and question his ability to manage a financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg survey.
The global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and four-out-of-five are only somewhat confident or not confident of his ability to handle a financial emergency.
The poll also finds a decline in Obama’s overall favorability rating one year after taking office. He is viewed favorably by 27 percent of U.S. investors. In an October poll, 32 percent in the U.S. held a positive impression.
“Investors no longer feel they can trust their instincts to take risks,” said poll respondent David Young, a managing director for a broker dealer in New York. Young cited Obama’s efforts to trim bonuses and earnings, make health care his top priority over jobs and plans to tax “the rich or advantaged.”
So I’m not just some isolated nutjob. Rather, Barack Obama is now the isolated nutjob.
President Obama demands that banks lend more money even as he massively over-regulates them, demonizes them, and undermines their ability to make any profit whatsoever from any loans they actually do make.
People want to invest and make money, no matter who is president, and no matter which party controls the government. Investors aren’t ideologues, but opportunists. Markets intend to improve on their own if they are just left alone, because individuals start making personal decisions with their own investments, with the net effect usually balancing out the big picture.
And Barack Obama cannot leave well enough alone, either. At his core, he is an elitist bureaucrat who truly believes he knows better than everyone else combined. He believes he can push the buttons and pull the levers of market forces and human lives and run everything from the top. He rewards losers by punishing winners as he tries to impose his warped philosophy of redistributionist “fairness” on the economy. He will fail, and the country will fail along with him until he is gone.
Stocks set to continue sell-off after Obama’s new bank overhaul plans spook the market
By STEPHEN BERNARD , Associated Press
Last update: January 22, 2010 – 7:19 AM
NEW YORK – Stocks are set to extend their slide Friday, following the worst two-day stretch the market has seen since June.
Stock futures fell as better than expected earnings from General Electric and Google failed to inspire traders.
President Barack Obama spooked the market Thursday, after asking Congress for limits on how large big banks can be and to end some of the risky trading large financial companies have used in recent quarters to boost profits.
The market could be re-entering a period of uncertainty that defined the financial crisis and sent it cratering nearly a year ago before its 10-month rally.
Overseas, Asian markets overnight followed the U.S. sharply lower. European markets are also falling.
Not even the latest batch of upbeat earnings reports from major companies was able to provide some support for investors looking to limit the recent damage.
General Electric Co. reported fourth-quarter profit that beat analyst expectations. The conglomerate also said it is seeing an increase in orders and a growing backlog for products and services, sure signs that the economy is starting to improve.
Internet giant Google Inc. also provided an upbeat sign for the economy, posting robust fourth-quarter earnings that easily topped analyst estimates. The results were driven by a pickup in Internet advertising, which could be a sign companies are feeling more confident the economy will recovery and opting to spend more to draw in customers.
Credit card lender American Express Co. also beat expectations after it set aside less money for defaulting loans. Default and delinquency rates both fell from the previous quarter, another encouraging sign for the economy.
High loan losses have plagued the financial sector and any declines in defaults would be a welcome sign that the consumer is starting to recover.
Ahead of the opening bell, Dow Jones industrial average futures fell 39, or 0.4 percent, to 10,299. Standard & Poor’s 500 index futures declined 3.20, or 0.3 percent, to 1,107.90, while Nasdaq 100 index futures dropped 1.75, or 0.1 percent, to 1,839.25.
The Dow is trying to bounce back after losing 213 points Thursday and 336 points, or 3.1 percent, during the past two trading sessions. The losses have erased all the early gains seen in 2010.
Large financial firms, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. all plummeted Thursday. The three big banks, which have prominent consumer and investment banking operations, would likely be the hardest hit by Obama’s new regulations. Shares of each all declined more than 5 percent.
Meanwhile, bond prices dipped Friday morning. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note, which moves opposite its price, rose to 3.60 percent from 3.59 percent late Thursday.
The dollar was mixed against other major currencies, while gold prices declined.
Overseas, Japan’s Nikkei stock average fell 2.6 percent. Britain’s FTSE 100 declined 1.2 percent, Germany’s DAX index fell 1.1 percent, and France’s CAC-40 dropped 1 percent.
No president and no Congress can make the economy improve. All either can do is allow the markets to have an opportunity to improve on their own by creating an atmosphere that is friendly to the small businesses that create jobs and drive the economy.
But neither Obama nor the Democrats in Congress are willing to do that.
Which is why we’re going to just keep limping along until they are gone.
WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans forced Democrats to vote in favor of cutting billions from providers of home care for older people as partisan debate flared Saturday during a rare weekend session on President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
Obama planned to travel to Capitol Hill on Sunday to help Democrats resolve internal disputes that stand in the way of Majority Leader Harry Reid bringing the 10-year, nearly $1 trillion legislation to a vote.
Ahead of his visit, Republicans, bent on making Democrats cast politically risky votes, offered their third amendment in the debate so far showcasing more than $400 billion in cuts to projected Medicare spending that would pay for the bill, mostly for subsidies to help extend coverage to millions of uninsured.
Like the other two, this one went down to defeat, on a vote of 53 to 41. The measure by Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., would have eliminated $42 billion in cuts over 10 years to agencies that provide home health care to seniors under Medicare.
Four moderate Democrats joined all Republicans present in voting for the amendment: Sens. Jim Webb of Virginia, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
Underscoring the pressures on the moderates, Lincoln, who faces a difficult re-election next year, initially cast a “no” vote with the Democratic majority but switched to “yes” in the course of the 15-minute vote. Republicans accused her of flip-flopping, but Lincoln said later that she changed her vote after considering how important home health care is to Arkansas.
“That’s why they give us 15 minutes,” said Lincoln.
The more consequential action was taking place behind closed doors Saturday as Democrats struggled to find a compromise on a proposed government insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. Lincoln and several other moderate Democrats are opposed to the government insurance plan in the bill, and Reid, D-Nev., doesn’t have a vote to spare in his 60-member caucus.
The Democrats’ logic is to replace a bankrupt government program that will only crash against the seniors it was supposed to cover with a vastly larger government program that will crash with a far larger implosion against everybody.
Seniors are going to die under the Democrats’ plan. The logic is unavoidable: 1) the plan calls for young, healthy people to buy expensive insurance policies – which they have never purchased before – in order to “spread out risks” for the entire system. 2) If they don’t purchase the coverage, they will be called upon to pay a fine. The problem is that the fine is much lower than the price of the insurance coverage. 3) Therefore young people largely WON’T purchase the insurance, and will instead pay the fine, knowing that since they CAN’T be rejected for any “pre-existing condition” (such as not being insured), they can’t be turned down if they get sick/injured and then need coverage. For what it’s worth, a lot of other adults will be encouraged to do the same thing. 4) Therefore, the Democrats’ plan will not raise nearly as much as they think. And 5) the need to severely ration care will be critical.
The Wall Street Journal rightly calls this fiasco “The Worst Bill Ever.” Why?
As Congress’s balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can’t regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.
The Dean of the Harvard Medical School gave it a “failing grade.” Dr. Jeffrey Flier argued that:
In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.
The state’s largest doctors group is opposing healthcare legislation being debated in the Senate this week, saying it would increase local healthcare costs and restrict access to care for elderly and low-income patients.
The California Medical Assn. represents more than 35,000 physicians statewide, making it the second-largest state medical association in the country after Texas. […]
d“The Senate bill came so short that we could not support it, even though we solidly support healthcare reform,” said Dr. Dev GnanaDev, medical director at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in San Bernardino, who also serves on the association’s executive committee.
Doctors who oppose the Senate bill are concerned that it would would shift Medicare funding from urban to rural areas, move responsibility for Medicare oversight away from Congress by creating an Independent Medicare Commission and, ultimately, decrease Medicare reimbursement rates.
The “Independent Medicare Commission” is just one of the many “death panels” this bill would create. One hundred and eleven death panels, to be precise.
Support for the president’s health care plan fell to 38%, its lowest ever, just before Thanksgiving. Followed by two weeks at 41%, this marks the lowest extended period of support for the plan yet. With the exception of a few days following nationally televised presidential appeals for the legislation, the number of voters opposed to the plan has always exceeded the number who favor it.
“This suggests that public opinion about the health care plan is hardening,” says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. “Despite the fact that most American believe our health care system needs major changes, most are opposed to what Congress is currently doing about it.” […]
While one of the chief stated goals of the plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats is to lower the cost of health care, 57% say costs will go up if the plan is passed. Twenty-one percent (21%) say costs will go down, and 17% believe they will stay about the same.
Similarly, only 23% think the quality of health care will get better if the plan is passed, while 54% predict that it will get worse. Sixteen percent (16%) expect quality to stay about the same.
So what do the Democrats – who promised unprecedented “openness” and “transparency” – do? Barack Obama went to the Senate and had a
“closed-door meeting” that slammed the door shut in Republicans’ faces. This is a hard care ideologically leftist partisan takever, funded by flat-out bribes paid for by the taxpayers.
Entrenched Democrats bought Mary Landrieu’s vote to proceed with their partisan boondoggle in what amounts to the Louisiana Purchase, Part Deux.
And of course they have a trillion dollars in porkulus slush fund money to bribe and purchase whoever else they need to fundamentally screw the American people and destroy our way of life.
Is this seriously how you want the future of American health care to be decided?
Federal officials predicted last spring that as many as 120 million doses could be available by now, with nearly 200 million by year’s end. But production problems plagued some of the five companies contracted to make the vaccine. All use a technology involving growing the vaccine in fertilized chicken eggs; at most of them, the seed strain grew more slowly than expected.
The manufacturers are “working hard to get vaccine out as safely and rapidly as possible,” Dr. Frieden said. But since it is grown in eggs, “even if you yell at them, they don’t grow faster.”
Since last winter’s more isolated cases of swine flu, the expectation that the virus would return with a vengeance in this flu season had posed a test of the Obama administration’s preparedness. Officials are mindful that the previous administration’s failure to better prepare for and respond to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 left doubts that dogged President George W. Bush to the end of his term.
The Obama government predicted 120 million doses, but – as the article makes clear – they have only 30 million. This is an absolute disaster – and it is entirely appropriate to compare this level of sheer incompetence to George Bush’s “Katrina moment.”
And blaming the delays that will leave Americans woefully exposed to H1N1 is tantamount to George Bush blaming the Hurricane Katrina response on the American Red Cross. That pig just doesn’t fly, Barry Hussein.
Swine flu, also known as H1N1, may infect as much as half of the population and kill 30,000 to 90,000 people, double the deaths caused by the typical seasonal flu, according to the planning scenario issued yesterday by the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. Intensive care units in hospitals, some of which use 80 percent of their space in normal operation, may need every bed for flu cases, the report said.
CBS/AP) Federal health officials now say that 4,000 or more Americans likely have died from swine flu – about four times the estimate they’ve been using.
If you go back and survey this slowly unfolding disaster, you will find that the Obama government has routinely been wrong by a factor of between 400% – 500%. At some point you’d think the mainstream media would really start coming unglued over this incompetence. But not so much (hint: the president is a Democrat).
Are conservatives wrong to blast Obama for this gross incompetence?
Not if history counts for anyting (which it usually doesn’t with liberals). Amy Geiger-Hemmer writes:
Remember a few short years ago how President Bush was just ripped apart by the mainstream media and blamed for flu vaccine shortages? Most Democrat representatives acted outraged at the President and his inability to have enough flu vaccines available for the American people during flu season. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are two excellent examples:
“They’re more interested in tax cuts for the rich than for flu shots for everyone who needs them,” Clinton railed Monday afternoon at a press conference at New York’s Ryan/Chelsea-Clinton Community Health Center.Found this on “The Daily Kos” – so lefties will believe it:
Remember this from October of 2004:
Democrats have seized on the vaccine shortage to accuse the administration of being unable to protect Americans – from either illness or terrorism. “If you can’t get flu vaccines to Americans, how are you going to protect them against bioterrorism?’‘ Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, asked in an interview with National Public Radio. “If you can’t get flu vaccines to Americans, what kind of health care program are you running?”…” (WOW!!!! Imagine if ANYONE would ask Obama this same question?)
And that was just an ordinary flu year. No “national emergencies.” No super-flu. No flu that kills four times as many people as authorities predicted it would.
Not that Democrats (and that includes the mainstream media) are capable of being fair or objective, but if they were only capable of turning their demagoguery on themselves…
This is not only a shocking failure, but an incredibly dangerous and potentially deadly failure as well:
“I’m worried the virus (H1N1) is getting ahead of the public health system’s ability to control it” — Senator Joe Lieberman (I)
There are extreme shortages of the H1N1 vaccine all over the U.S. As a result, people are getting sick and they are dying. This pandemic is raging, and spreading like wildfire, and for the first time ever the private sector has been removed from the process of distributing the vaccine.
It has been standard operating procedure in the past for private industry to distribute vaccines that were needed for the greater good of the people. Now, however, with the H1N1 vaccine and the Obama administration in charge, the government has taken over all responsibility for distribution of the vaccine to the states via the CDC. The government has failed so miserably in distributing the vaccine that now the [DEMOCRAT!!!] U.S. Senate is investigating their incompetence and possible corruption.
Picture this if you will, right now in the U.S. Senate, The Homeland Security Committee headed by Joe Lieberman (Independent and former Democrat), is investigating the complete and total incompetence and perhaps corruption, as well as the assertions from some that the Obama administration is playing political favorites with your lives, as it relates to one area of health care while at the same time another Senate committee is gathered trying to hammer together legislation that would allow the U.S. government to take total control over all health care in the U.S.
Lieberman’s committee is trying to determine why the U.S. Government so grossly underestimated the amount of vaccine that would be available and why the vaccine may be available when it’s too late.
“It’s moved with alarming speed and took an exceptionally high toll at a time of year when we don’t encounter a high number of flu cases. Flu spikes typically occur in January. We’re in October … and the number of cases is higher than what we usually see at the flu’s peak in January,” Lieberman said this morning.
There are also accusations by some that Blue States are receiving the vaccine in multiples far higher than Red States regardless of population. As an example; Texas, a traditionally Republican stronghold and the second most populous state in the union is ranked at number 48 in terms of vaccinations received.
Is the Obama administration saying that if your state voted Republican then it is okay for H1N1 to kill your kids, or you?
And the point that the Democrat candidate for president asked (see above) in 2004 applies BIG TIME now: “If you can’t get flu vaccines to Americans, what kind of health care program do you think you CAN run?”
Are you going to allow these clowns to run your health care system? Are you going to trust them with your life? Are you going to put another 1/5th of the economy under their control?
Speaking of the economy, this isn’t merely a health disaster; it is increasingly likely that it will create a massive economic disaster as well.
I’m sure you are aware that many retail businesses make 70% of their profits during the Christmas season? What happens if people are afraid to shop for fear of the H1N1 Obama Death?
Consider that what is increasingly likely to become a health disaster is even more likely to be an economic disaster, as H1N1 escalates its attack during the Holidays and the Christmas shopping season, with still no significant stocks of vaccine available.
How much longer can Obama keep blaming Bush for his growing list of failures?
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.
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.
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:
Start Thinking Right 