It cost you $24,000 to hand out a $4,000 check for each new car that wouldn’t have been solde anyway (and most of that went to Japanese cars). Why?
One reason: The thousands of bureaucrats hired to administer the program knew that the program was temporary so they tried to extend the program by rejecting as many applications as possible, knowing that denied filers would refile and thus keep their government finding incoming. And these are the people that some want running health care.
The Cash for Clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel economy requirements. A total of $3 billion was allotted for those rebates.
The average rebate was $4,000. But the overwhelming majority of sales would have taken place anyway at some time in the last half of 2009, according to Edmunds.com. That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales.
“It is unfortunate that Edmunds.com has had nothing but negative things to say about a wildly successful program that sold nearly 250,000 cars in its first four days alone,” said Bill Adams, spokesman for the Department of Transportation.
As we stated from the very beginning. The stimulus was a leftist slush fund that is a boon to government and special interest groups. It was not intended to create jobs which was obvious from the content of the stimulus. Dr. Schiller told them so when they asked him so they can’t claim ignorance (per his lecture at IUSB).
Remember when Obama said that if the stimulus plan wasn’t passed right away unemployment would reach 8.5%. Well now it is 10,2% and when you figure in those who have just given up looking for work it is 17.5% (LINK). This means that almost 1 in 5 members of the workforce are unemployed.
Nice graphic from Mike Pence. The editorializing in the graphic really wasn’t necessary as the numbers speak for themselves.
The second graphic is from “Innocent Bystanders” which has some other stats and graphics from previous months.
Why is unemployment up?
It can be summed up in two words, “no confidence”. NO confidence that those who invest in hiring new people, expanding business or production or making capital investments will lead to a fair return on their investment.
When Obama decided to break the law and go after the bond holders who held those GM bonds in favor of his union friends, who would buy loan bonds in the United States? It has always been the rules that bond holders get paid first even if a company goes out of business. Obama stated that he wants to nearly double the capital gains tax which serves only one purpose, to punish investors by taking their return. One would have to be crazy to invest in bonds or much else under such circumstances. In China the capital gains tax rate is ZERO.
With the administration deliberately trying to make energy (cap & trade energy tax) and health care more expensive who would would to build factories here? Who would want to hire?
With the Federal Reserve printing up money like crazy, setting the benchmark lending rate to zero, the Treasury not acting to protect the value of the dollar and the Democrats quadrupling deficit spending and considering a new bill to force banks to once again make home loans to people regardless of income; who would invest in American financial institutions? Who would wan’t anything to do with the dollar?
No one with a brain could expect anything but greater unemployment and more jobs and wealth going to China under such an environment.
Deficits Rise
When wealth and jobs are chased out of the country that is economic activity that cannot be taxed. This raises deficits.
In the last budget that Republicans had control (2007) the deficit for the YEAR was $211 billion. The deficit for the MONTH of October was $176.36 Billion.
The federal government kicked off fiscal year 2010 by posting its widest-ever October budget deficit, the Treasury Department said Thursday.
The $176.36 billion gap is more than $20 billion wider than the shortfall recorded in October 2008, driven up by lower tax receipts, stimulus-related revenue reductions and consistently high government outlays.
In June, the federal government spent $1,047 in stimulus money to buy a rider mower from the Toro Company to cut the grass at the Fayetteville National Cemetery in Arkansas. Now, a report on the government’s stimulus Web site improbably claims that that single lawn mower sale helped save or create 50 jobs.
Earlier that same month, when Chrysler got a $52.9 million stimulus order for new cars for the government, the struggling automaker claimed that the money did not save a single job.
Those two extremes illustrate the difficulties in trying to figure out just how many jobs can be attributed to the $787 billion stimulus program. Last week the Obama administration released reports from more than 130,000 recipients of stimulus money in which they claimed to have saved or created more than 640,000 jobs, but a review of those reports shows that some are simply wrong, while others contain apparently subjective estimates.
That is a pretty tough indictment considering that the New York Times has been in the tank for the Obama Administration. Ed Morrissey at Hotair.com has more commentary on this part of the story.
Government legislated and regulated the American vaccine industry out of business and out of the country thanks in large part to Senator Hillary Clinton.
The health recommendations board that was passed as part of the stimulus, that will likely become mandatory if Pelosi/ObamaCare passes. Guess how many oncologists are on that board; if you guessed a big fat goose egg congratulations.
Government insurance only pays for a test if it is rated an A or a B test. Well mammograms for women under 50 and over age 75 got moved by this board to a C.
The rationing has already begun and you women who voted for Obama in such overwhelming numbers are the first target. He knows that single women under 30 will likely vote for him anyways.
This is a video that anyone who cares about the status and future of the United States must see. Lou Dobbs explains a point of view that has a great deal of merit and truth. About how both parties are owned by special interests, how there are only a few honest and straight shooters in either party (by the way, Sarah Palin is attacked because she has successfully brought down a massive corporate/political corruption ring in Alaska. If Palin becomes President billions in corruption will come to an end and that has parts of both parties frightened to death).
I am very aware that some people see me and this blog as some ideological instrument, what we really try to do here is shine a light on what the elite media culture under reports, ignores, or tries to render powerless so people can be better informed.
Congresslady extraordinaire Michelle Bachmann asked for citizens to come to the capital one week ago and wow did they come.
Michelle Bachmann
Our friends at FactReal.com put together a fabulous post with all of the pictures, videos and other goodies for you to view - LINK. So be sure to pay them a visit. FactReal also put together the following list of links to help get educated on the latest version of Pelosi/ObamaCare:
Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on November 5th, 2009
Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it.
Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that. On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.
What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.
Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.
This is pure insanity and as foolish politically as can be. The Democrat leadership must want this more than they want to keep their seats in 2010.
This post has been stickied to the top of the page. Please scroll down for the latest posts & updates - Editor
UPDATE: SHOCK! Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium – LINK. UPDATE - So does Senator Reid’s new Bill! – LINK.
Obama Advisor and former Labor Sec. Robert Reich. Listen for yourself:
We are going to let the old die because its to expensive and we are going to make the drug companies poor so they cant innovate new drugs so you young people likely will not live much longer than your parents. We have to make the young pay more.
And the Democrats called Sarah Palin a liar ……
.. The Roundup:
Democrats Lied About Choice: Health Care Bill Targets Most New Private Health Insurance Policies. Watch the videos to listen to their own words - LINK
Ten questions to ask your Congressman about ObamaCare – LINK.
Obama health care advisors say: Very old and very young will get less care – LINK.
Oregon State health Service tells 64 year old woman: We wont pay for the drug to save your life, but we will pay for Euthanasia – LINK.
IBD Poll: 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Obama/Pelosi Health Care Overhaul – LINK.
Answering far left talking points on US health care – LINK.
Congressional Committee confirms: Buy Insurance, Pay ObamaCare Penalty, or Go to Jail! – LINK.
Cornell Law Professor: Palin is right about “Death Panels” for ObamaCare – LINK.
European Member of Parliament – National Health Service has made us iller” – LINK.
CBO says that ObamaCare will result in benefit cuts. AARP stands to make millions from ObamaCare – LINK.
ABC 20/20 Takes on Government Health Care:
The Case Against Nationalized Healthcare in 3 minutes 42 seconds:
GOP Health Care Alternative Bill Online. First Step in Moving Towards Consortium Based Health Pools & Away from Mandates Forced On Citizens by Employers, Union Bosses, and the State - LINK.
You can examine all of our health care coverage HERE.
GOP Congressman: If Obama/PelosiCare is so good, why do you have to threaten people with jail if they try to opt out?
The best interview you may ever see on how to help bring down health care costs and get people covered, and believe it or not it was on MSNBC. The anchor here finally asked the right questions; questions that aren’t partisan gotchas but questions that are designed to look out for the folks.
The host asks a key question in the interview; why is it that we are subject to the limits our employers, the state or the union bosses put on us when it comes to picking our own health care plan? He hit the nail on the head. The time for letting someone else have so much control over our own health care choices needs to come to an end. It is time to move away from the state, union, employer based insurance to a consortium based series of health care pools that people can buy into.
The new 219 page GOP health care bill is the first step to move in that direction by incentivizing the creation of health care pools across state lines which are now prohibited by the government. The bill also creates and provides incentives for the states to create a guaranteed high risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions.
The GOP alternative removes the government barrier to buying health insurance across state lines, lets you have more choice as to the pools that you can buy into, has bogus lawsuit reform and more. The summary of the bill can be found HERE and you can examine the full text of the bill HERE.
The CBO says that this new 219 page GOP alternative bill will lower premiums by 10%, lower the deficit by 68 billion and help more people get insurance. This bill is not the “be all end all” in health insurance reform, but it is a very smart, incremental first step. Most importantly it doesn’t do any damage.
The current 2000 page Pelosi health bill has the legal mandate word “shall” in it 3,425 times. It doesn’t take a genius to see that such a bill does not expand flexibility in making your health care choices.
Some have seen the original list of 26, but I felt compelled to few to add to my own to 46 and lets see if we can come up with a few more. I invite you to come up with some we missed in the comments section.
1. Offended the Queen of England.
2. Offended British PM By snubbing him and offering trade gifts that were a joke (25 DVD’s that wont play in England).
3. Offended the British People by returning a bust of Winston Churchill that they gave the United States (its like sending the Statue of Liberty back to France).
4. Offended the President of France by snubbing him multiple times.
5. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia.
6. Praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega.
7. Kissed Socialist Hugo Chavez on the cheek.
8. Endorsed the Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia.
9. Sided with Hugo Chavez and Communist Fidel Castro against Honduras.
10. Announced we would meet with Iranians with no pre-conditions while they’re building their nuclear weapons.
11. Reneged on a missile shield agreement with Eastern Europe almost ending all relations with Poland and the Czech Republic.
12. Left the country of Georgia in the cold after the Russian invasion.
13. Gave away billions to AIG also without pre-conditions.
14. Expanded the bailouts.
15. Insulted everyone who has ever loved a Special Olympian.
16. Doubled our national debt.
17. Announced the termination of our new missile defense system the day after North Korea launched an ICBM.
18. Released information on U.S. Intelligence gathering despite urgings of his own CIA director and the prior four CIA directors.
19. Accepted without comment that five of his cabinet members cheated on their taxes and two other nominees withdrew after they couldn’t take the heat.
20. Appointed a Homeland Security Chief who identified military veterans and abortion opponents as “dangers to the nation.”
21. Ordered that the word “terrorism” no longer be used and instead refers to such acts as “man made disasters.”
23. Circled the globe to publicly apologize for America’s world leadership.
24. Told the Mexican president that the violence in their country was because of us.
25. Politicized the census by moving it into the White House from the Department of Commerce.
26. Appointed as Attorney General the man who orchestrated the forced removal and expulsion to Cuba of a 9-year-old whose mother died trying to bring him to freedom in the United States.
27. Salutes as heroes three Navy SEALS who took down three terrorists who threatened one American life and the next day announces members of the Bush administration may stand trial for “torturing” three 9/11 terrorists by pouring water up their noses.
28. Low altitude photo shoot of Air Force One over New York City that frightened thousands of New Yorkers.
29. Sent his National Defense Advisor to Europe to assure them that the US will no longer treat Israel in a special manner and they might be on their own with the Muslims.
30. Praised Jimmy Carter’s trip to Gaza where he sided with terrorist Hamas against Israel.
31. Nationalized General Motors and Chrysler while turning shareholder control over to the unions and freezing out retired investors who owned their bonds. Committed unlimited taxpayer billions in the process.
31. Passed a huge energy tax in the House that will make American industry even less competitive while costing homeowners thousands per year.
32. Quietly ended the Washington DC school voucher program dooming promising children to one of the worst school districts in the nation.
33. Reversed himself on his transparency pledges multiple times.
34. After promising lobbying reform he had a financial responsibility summit that ended up being a lobbyist meet up with government. He also signed an order relaxing the lobbyist rules.
35. Allowed multiple lobbyists in the administration after promising not to.
36. After promising a new era of bi-partisanship his party locks Republicans out of bill negotiations.
37. Helped protect the bonuses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
38. Signed a bill containing over 9,000 pork earmarks after promising earmark reform.
39. Instead of using the TARP bailout funds to buy peoples mortgages and renegotiate them with citizens as promised he used the money to buy up/nationalize banks and leave citizens in the cold.
40. Committed multiple violations of the Hatch Act (see HHS.GOV).
41. Declared War on Fox News.
42. Declared War on the Chamber of Commerce.
43. Suppressed an EPA Report showing that global warming skeptics are largely correct.
44. Participating in the dismantling of the Dollar as the world reserve currency.
45. Signed into law the reversal of Bill Clinton & Newt Gingrich’s very successful and hugely popular bi-partisan welfare reform (which was the main plank of Bill Clinton’s legacy).
46. Announced nationalized health care “reform” that will strip seniors of their Medicare, cut pay of physicians, increase taxes yet another $1 trillion, and put everyone on rationed care with government bureaucrats deciding who gets care and who doesn’t. Bloomberg: Daschle says, “Health care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them,” while former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm says seniors have “a duty to die.” If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that the President, Senators and Congressmen have their own special gold plated health care plan which is guaranteed the remainder of their lives and they are not subject to this new law if they pass it.
The biggest news here is the lack of transparency going on with the current process and of course all the new taxes the Democrats promised they wouldn’t levy…
In violation of the spirit of the process the bills are being merged behind closed doors with the Republicans being locked out. Remember when Obama promised transparency and how the hearings and such on the health care bill would all be on C-Span and not behind closed doors??
Just a reminder, here are Obama’s seven lies in under two minutes.
Below you will read about how what are called “Cadillac Plans” will be taxed at 40%. The bill also requires that those with pre-existing conditions and the sick cannot be turned down. It also mandates that there be limits on the differences in premiums between the old and young, healthy and sick. This will make the costs of premium go way up especially for the young. The young will choose to pay the tax penalty rather than get the insurance. But no worries, when you get sick go buy the insurance and when your better drop it.
The end result? Premiums will go up in cost and become considered Cadillac plans over time. Most good plans that are as good or better than the public option will be considered “Cadillac Plans” over time. using price forces to send you into the public option, which is the goal.
This will also make an adversarial relation ship between the doctor and the patient. The doctor will have budget schedules to meet and you will need the best care possible. One cannot serve two gods. perhaps this is why presidential advisors have said that the Hippocratic oath is taken too seriously and is a part of the problem.
This brings us back to the death panels again. Dick Morris believes that the final versions of the bill will have the same cost/benefit analysis called QARY (Quality Adjusted Remaining Years). So if you are 95 and need a pacemaker , well odds are you wont live much longer so the cost divided out over your QARY is too high so the answer is no. I know a nice married couple in their late 80’s who are in better physical shape than I am and very active. This is exactly why doctors and individuals need to make these choices and not a cost benefit analysis. And before it is said in the comments, death panels does not mean that they will decide who gets the plug pulled, rather it decides who gets the plug plugged in in the first place.
The Senate majority’s contempt for the American people rears its ugly head again. The Senate Finance Committee just voted down a GOP amendment requiring that Obamacare legislation be available online 72 hours before the panel votes. Instead, the Democrats offered to make “conceptual language” available.
Dems lied, transparency died:
WASHINGTON — Senate Finance Committee Democrats have rejected a GOP amendment that would have required a health overhaul bill to be available online for 72 hours before the committee votes.
Republicans argued that transparency is an Obama administration goal. They also noted that their constituents are demanding that they read bills before voting.
Democrats said it was a delay tactic that could have postponed a vote for weeks.
Democrat leaders legislating in special deals for their states
Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) — Nevada would get help with its Medicaid bills. The elderly in Florida and New York would receive additional Medicare benefits. And workers in so-called high-risk professions such as firefighting and construction would get a break on a new insurance tax.
Those are provisions that Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, put in an $829 billion health-care bill to shield constituents from measures intended to pay for the biggest overhaul of the medical system in four decades.
The result is the new policies may be unevenly administered, with some U.S. states getting preferential treatment, a possibility that has given Republican lawmakers ammunition to attack the legislation.
“It’s going to hurt the bill and raise the level of cynicism about Washington politics,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican. “The provisions ought to be applied to all of the states.”
The number of special provisions is likely to grow as the full Senate begins debating the measure in coming weeks. Because Democrats are unlikely to win many Republican votes, individual lawmakers will have leverage to demand changes to satisfy parochial interests.
Baucus Senate Health Bill Costs Skyrocket Over Time
Remember when health-care reform was supposed to make life better for the middle class? That dream began to unravel this past summer when Congress proposed a bill that failed to include any competition-based reforms that would actually bend the curve of health-care costs. It fell apart completely when Democrats began papering over the gaping holes their plan would rip in the federal budget.
As it now stands, the plan proposed by Democrats and the Obama administration would not only fail to reduce the cost burden on middle-class families, it would make that burden significantly worse.
Consider the bill put forward by the Senate Finance Committee. From a budgetary perspective, it is straightforward. The bill creates a new health entitlement program that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will grow over the longer term at a rate of 8% annually, which is much faster than the growth rate of the economy or tax revenues. This is the same growth rate as the House bill that Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) deep-sixed by asking the CBO to tell the truth about its impact on health-care costs.
To avoid the fate of the House bill and achieve a veneer of fiscal sensibility, the Senate did three things: It omitted inconvenient truths, it promised that future Congresses will make tough choices to slow entitlement spending, and it dropped the hammer on the middle class.
One inconvenient truth is the fact that Congress will not allow doctors to suffer a 24% cut in their Medicare reimbursements. Senate Democrats chose to ignore this reality and rely on the promise of a cut to make their bill add up. Taking note of this fact pushes the total cost of the bill well over $1 trillion and destroys any pretense of budget balance.
It is beyond fantastic to promise that future Congresses, for 10 straight years, will allow planned cuts in reimbursements to hospitals, other providers, and Medicare Advantage (thereby reducing the benefits of 25% of seniors in Medicare). The 1997 Balanced Budget Act pursued this strategy and successive Congresses steadily unwound its provisions. The very fact that this Congress is pursuing an expensive new entitlement belies the notion that members would be willing to cut existing ones.
Most astounding of all is what this Congress is willing to do to struggling middle-class families. The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees. Nearly 90% of that burden will be shouldered by those making $200,000 or less.
It might not appear that way at first, because the dollars are collected via a 40% tax on sales by insurers of “Cadillac” policies, fees on health insurers, drug companies and device manufacturers, and an assortment of odds and ends.
But the economics are clear. These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums. Consumers will pay the excise tax on high-cost plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that 87% of the burden would fall on Americans making less than $200,000, and more than half on those earning under $100,000.
Industry fees are even worse because Democrats chose to make these fees nondeductible. This means that insurance companies will have to raise premiums significantly just to break even. American families will bear a burden even greater than the $130 billion in fees that the bill intends to collect. According to my analysis, premiums will rise by as much as $200 billion over the next 10 years—and 90% will again fall on the middle class.
Senate Democrats are also erecting new barriers to middle-class ascent. A family of four making $54,000 would pay $4,800 for health insurance, with the remainder coming from subsidies. If they work harder and raise their income to $66,000, their cost of insurance rises by $2,800. In other words, earning another $12,000 raises their bill by $2,800—a marginal tax rate of 23%. Double-digit increases in effective tax rates will have detrimental effects on the incentives of millions of Americans.
Lieberman Says Baucus Health Bill Will Raise Prices and Taxes by $400 Billion:
Pricewaterhouse Coopers Report Baucus Bill will cause premiums to rise by $1700 per family by 2013.
You can examine the report yourself HERE. Fox News Analysis did an analysis with a GOP Senator
Clinton Advisor Dick Morris on What the Obama-care Bills Mean for You
Morris gives more details about the high price of Obama-care HERE and HERE.
Were Saved! Mew House Health Bill Only Costs $900 Billion and Will be Deficit Neutral for 10 Years….
House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Tuesday new estimates showed a healthcare overhaul drafted by Democrats would reduce the U.S. budget deficit over 10 years and cost less than $900 billion.
The preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office moved Democratic leaders closer to finishing a merger of three separate healthcare reform bills into one for debate on the House floor.
Ok now how did they do it….. well this is the part where the proposal gets a lot less popular.
They do it by starting the new taxes now, cutting Medicare now, reducing the rates at which doctors are reimbursed now and kicking in the “reform” five years from now so that the new government expense for the program wont fully kick in for five years.
Those of you who are old enough to remember the 1970’s know what price controls do. They limit supply and choice. Oil lines, brown outs and rolling power outages in California etc. When you can’t make sufficient profit to cover costs, growth, and unexpected economic shocks would you produce more of it?
The $871 billion estimate — well under the $900 billion limit set by President Obama — is the latest of several versions scored by congressional budget analysts, according to a Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks. The measure would include a government-run insurance plan that pays providers at rates tied to Medicare, the aide added. That so-called “robust” public option is preferred by liberals because it would save the government money and could force private insurers to lower their own reimbursement rates, driving down the cost of health care overall. (Thats price controls which result in long wait lines and reduced quality – Editor]
But the idea is opposed by many conservative Democrats from rural areas, where Medicare rates are well below the national average. A new insurance plan that paid such low rates would be devastating to their communities financially, these Democrats say. Instead, they argue that any public plan should negotiate rates directly with providers, as private plans do.
Ed Morrissey at Hotair.com has a nice detailed explanation HERE Patientpowernow.com produced the following videos:
They produced this video criticizing Oregon State run health care and yes this is what Oregon did.
Canadians Speak Out On Health Care
This is from the Mackinac Center who has more video’s and details.
242 Patients Died of Malnutrition in British Health Service Hospitals in 2007
PRISONERS HAVE A BETTER DIET THAN NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE HOSPITAL PATIENTS, SCIENTISTS WARN
Patients in Great Britain’s government-run National Health Service (NHS) hospitals are far more likely to go hungry than criminals in jail, scientists warn.
They say frail and elderly patients do not get the help they need with meals, and nobody checks whether they get enough to eat. Despite years of Government promises to tackle poor hospital nutrition, food still arrives cold, and patients often miss out because meal times clash with tests and operations. Meanwhile, prisoners are enjoying carbohydrate-rich, low-fat foods which in many cases are better than they would have been eating on the outside.
The Daily Mail has been highlighting the scandal of old people not being fed properly in hospital as part of its Dignity for the Elderly campaign. Hospital meals are often taken away untouched, because they are either unappetizing or are placed out of patients’ reach:
The latest figures show 242 patients died of malnutrition in NHS hospitals in 2007 — the highest toll in a decade.
More than 8,000 left hospital under-nourished — double the figure when Labor came to power.
The NHS throws away 11million meals every year, and many nurses say they are too busy to help the frail eat.
Earlier this year the Mail revealed that some hospitals spend less on meals than the average prison:
Ten hospitals spent less on breakfast, lunch and an evening meal than the £2.12 (about U.S.$3.54) a day allocated for food by the prison service; one spent just £1 (about U.S.$1.67).
Although most hospitals do spend more than £2.12 (about U.S.$3.45), prisoners end up better nourished than patients, say experts from Bournemouth University.
After studying the food offered to inmates and across the NHS, they found patients face more barriers in getting good nutrition.
Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb said: “It’s incredible that so many hospitals are failing to serve healthy meals. If prisons can serve good food then so can hospitals.”
Obama Administration Violating Hatch Act by using Tax Dollars to Politic for ObamaCare
And yes it’s illegal. In short the Department of Health and Human Services Web Site has a section on the right hand side of the page to sign up to support and lobby Congress ObamaCare. Of course there is only one option, to support it.Senator Grassley fired off a letter to HHS letting them know that it is illegal. Ed Morrissey at Hotair has more details. This administration seems to be politicizing most everything. Afghanistan, the CIA, FCC etc.
WASHINGTON – Congress’ chief budget officer on Tuesday contradicted President Barack Obama’s oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn’t see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.
The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators that seniors in Medicare’s managed care plans could see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.
The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.
Elmendorf said the changes “would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans.”
This is the key AARP angle. The number one seller of AARP medicare Advantage gap insurance is the AARP. AARP will have to raise rates to make up for the gap and more people will have to buy gap insurance due to the cut in benefits. AARP will make millions. Now you know why AARP is all for the latest health care proposals.
Hotair.com is reporting that the Senate Finance Committee Staff is saying the same thing:
SHAWN BISHOP, SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER: “The $113 billion dollars is a reduction in the extra benefits, the added, additional benefits that Medicare Advantage enrollees have available to them. And those benefits come in the form of vision, dental, reduced hospital deductible. It’s unstatutory, it’s unlawful for any Medicare Advantage plan to reduce the AB covered benefit that they provide. That’s by statute. They have to provide that. They are going to have a reduction in the added benefits that they have in Medicare Advantage. So there’s a reduction in benefits but its additional extra benefits that they have above what they’re entitled to by law on the fee for service side.” (Finance Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/22/09)
Ed Morrissey comments:
Only an idiot would conclude that $500 billion in cuts to Medicare over 10 years would mean no reduction in benefits. Webudgeted $413 billionfor this year, which makes a $50 billion “savings” target about 12% of its budget. Obama keeps talking about how efficient Medicare is compared to private health insurance, but how efficient can it be if he can slice 12% out of the budget without affecting benefits? In comparison, private health insurers spend 96.7% of all income on care and administrative costs, with only a 3.3% average profit margin.
Elmendorf is speaking not just from hard data but also common sense. Any attempt to get that level of “savings” from Medicare will necessarily cut the benefits going to its recipients. Trying to cast that as a myth is either an indication of mathematical incompetence, political dishonesty, or both. It’s also worth noting that when previous administrations attempted to cut Medicare spending by much lower amounts, Democrats would scream from the rafters about Republicans trying to steal Medicare away from seniors. In this case, the CBO confirms that Democrats have engaged inprojection.
And what happens in the media when the CBO exposes the President as a mythmaker, not a mythbuster? Well, it’s like the proverbial tree in the forest. None of the major newspapers covered the story that ObamaCare means cuts in Medicare benefits. Notone.
UPDATE (10/20/2009) – While googling about I see that Michelle Malkin has a post on the AARP rip off angle as well. I should have known that Malkin would be all over this story. As always Michelle, nice work.
Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate [who has been actively involved with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - IUSB Vision Editor] calls his new book “Three Felonies a Day,” referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws. New technology adds its own complexity, making innocent activity potentially criminal.
Mr. Silverglate describes several cases in which prosecutors didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand technology. This problem is compounded by a trend that has accelerated since the 1980s for prosecutors to abandon the principle that there can’t be a crime without criminal intent.
Some say that ignorance of the law is no excuse and if thats your view I suggest that you go turn yourself in immediately because you ARE guilty of something. Our government is so large and so foolish that it has creates so many laws and regulations that no one could possibly follow them all and will inadvertently violate some of them every single day.
Do you have any idea how many laws you violate when you have a garage sale?
Idiot Indiana prosecutor goes after old woman for buying two cold medicines:
Wabash Valley woman didn’t realize second cold medicine purchase violated drug laws
CLINTON — When Sally Harpold bought cold medicine for her family back in March, she never dreamed that four months later she would end up in handcuffs.
Now, Harpold is trying to clear her name of criminal charges, and she is speaking out in hopes that a law will change so others won’t endure the same embarrassment she still is facing.
“This is a very traumatic experience,” Harpold said.
Harpold is a grandmother of triplets who bought one box of Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband at a Rockville pharmacy. Less than seven days later, she bought a box of Mucinex-D cold medicine for her adult daughter at a Clinton pharmacy, thereby purchasing 3.6 grams total of pseudoephedrine in a week’s time.
Those two purchases put her in violation of Indiana law 35-48-4-14.7, which restricts the sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, or PSE, products to no more than 3.0 grams within any seven-day period.
When the police came knocking at the door of Harpold’s Parke County residence on July 30, she was arrested on a Vermillion County warrant for a class-C misdemeanor, which carries a sentence of up to 60 days in jail and up to a $500 fine. But through a deferral program offered by Vermillion County Prosecutor Nina Alexander, the charge could be wiped from Harpold’s record by mid-September.
Harpold’s story is one that concerns some law-abiding citizens who fear that innocent people will get mistakenly caught in the net of meth abuse roundups.
But the flip side of the story comes from the law enforcement arena, which is battling a resurgence in methamphetamine production in the Wabash Valley.
As the 12th-smallest county in the state, Vermillion County ranked as the state’s fifth-largest producer of methamphetamine just a few years ago.
“I don’t want to go there again,” Alexander told the Tribune-Star, recalling how the manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine ravaged the tiny county and its families.
While the law was written with the intent of stopping people from purchasing large quantities of drugs to make methamphetamine, the law does not say the purchase must be made with the intent to make meth.
“The law does not make this distinction,” Alexander said.
Anyone who has taken a law class knows that intent or criminal neglect/recklessness is one of the three conditions for determining if a crime has been committed. The charges should be dropped all together without paying court costs. She should have been interviewed but never arrested in the first place. Alexander is a lawyer who is supposed to be educated and enlightened and yet has no ability to use some common sense or to exercise her power with reasonable restraint.
Examine the comments under the story from the Tribune-Star. At the time of publishing of this post not one commenter supported the arrest of Miss Harpold proving once again that the average Joe is wiser than the enlightened elite.
Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.
Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed.
If the new ObamaCare bill passes it will generate two generations of Republican voters.
The shall issue mandate in current proposed legislation will cause premiums to skyrocket (details why below). Young people will not be able to afford it and as a result will be forced to opt for paying the mandated tax penalty. The penalty will still be much less than the premiums. The result, since the public option is gone, will be even more people who cannot afford health insurance, more employers who cannot afford health insurance for their employees, with both the poor, young and small employers paying higher taxes to subsidize the baby boomers.
It’s a rip off and there is a smarter way to do this.
Let’s have an honest debate before we transfer more money from young to old.
By Leavitt, Hubbard & Hennessey
Let’s start with basics: Insurance protects against the risk of something bad happening. When your house is on fire you no longer need protection against risk. You need a fireman and cash to rebuild your home. But suppose the government requires insurers to sell you fire “insurance” while your house is on fire and says you can pay the same premium as people whose houses are not on fire. The result would be that few homeowners would buy insurance until their houses were on fire.
The same could happen under health insurance reform. Here’s how: President Obama proposes to require insurers to sell policies to everyone no matter what their health status. By itself this requirement, called “guaranteed issue,” would just mean that insurers would charge predictably sick people the extremely high insurance premiums that reflect their future expected costs. But if Congress adds another requirement, called “community rating,” insurers’ ability to charge higher premiums for higher risks will be sharply limited.
Thus a healthy 25-year-old and a 55-year-old with cancer would pay nearly the same premium for a health policy. Mr. Obama and his allies emphasize the benefits for the 55-year old. But the 25-year-old, who may also have a lower income, would pay significantly more than needed to cover his expected costs.
Like the homeowner who waits until his house is on fire to buy insurance, younger, poorer, healthier workers will rationally choose to avoid paying high premiums now to subsidize insurance for someone else. After all, they can always get a policy if they get sick.
To avoid this outcome, most congressional Democrats and some Republicans would combine guaranteed issue and community rating with the requirement that all workers buy health insurance—that is, an “individual mandate.” This solves the incentive problem, and guarantees that both the healthy poor 25-year-old and the sick higher-income 55-year-old have heath insurance.
But the combination of a guaranteed issue, community rating and an individual mandate means that younger, healthier, lower-income earners would be forced to subsidize older, sicker, higher-income earners. And because these subsidies are buried within health-insurance premiums, the massive income redistribution is hidden from public view and not debated.
Mr. Leavitt, former secretary of Health and Human Services (2005-2009), has served as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and a governor of Utah (1993-2003). Mr. Hubbard (2005-2007) and Mr. Hennessey (2008) served as directors of the White House National Economic Council.
Polls and voting data don’t support Carter’s remarks
There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”
That comment comes from former President Jimmy Carter, which is fascinating considering Carter once ran for governor of Georgia proclaiming himself to be a “Lester Maddox Democrat.” (Maddox, a former Georgia governor, was an avowed segregationist who opposed integration under the Civil Rights Act.)
In fairness to President Carter, I do believe in redemption, and that people can change. But more and more people are inclined to say anyone who disagrees with Barack Obama must be racist.
J.C. Watts
It hurts me when the left and the right use race for political gain, and it depresses me further that it’s so awkward for us to talk about honestly and objectively about race. However, the implication that disagreeing with the president is racist also saddens and perplexes me.
Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000 and now a CNN analyst, nailed it when she said, “No one wins in touching race in such a shallow way. It raises defenses and creates backlash.”
The race issue blew up two weeks ago when Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., called Obama a liar on the floor of the House during the president’s address to a joint session of Congress. Although Democrats booed President Bush in that same chamber during a State of the Union a few years ago, it was still wrong for Wilson to do this.
He called the president’s chief of staff and apologized. I would have preferred he do it on the floor of the House, which is where the incident occurred.
There has always been a certain decorum in the people’s House. Boos and yelling “You lie!” are not part of that decorum.
Some try to defend one yelling “You lie!” because others boo, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Of course, we see this logic in politics from Democrats and Republicans both.
Be that as it may, was Wilson’s outburst racist? The congressman said it was not, so I take him at his word, and the opposition we’ve seen to the president’s agenda would not equate to racism based on the data released in the last year.
– President Obama did not get the majority of the white vote in 2008. Is that evidence of racism? No. This has been the case with Democrat candidates for years, including President Carter.
– President Obama did slightly better with the white vote in 2008 than John Kerry did in 2004.
– Before President Obama proposed a government takeover of the health care system, his approval rating with white voters was 57 percent.
– Between Election Day and the launch of Democrats’ health insurance reform efforts, President Obama did well with independent voters. But he has lost about 18 points with this demographic in the past two months. Most of these independent voters are white.
The data simply do not support President Carter’s claim.
Are there some people who didn’t vote for Obama because he’s black? Certainly. Just as there were some who opposed John McCain because he is white.
There are people of all colors who believe it is wrong for the government to take over our health care system.
There are people of all colors who believe we will have no choice but to ration health care when we put between 35 million and 40 million more people in the system but yet have the same number of doctors.
There are people of all colors who believe we already ration care through Medicare and Medicaid.
There are people of every color who believe it is bad economic policy to raise taxes, especially in a weak economy.
I would remind you that in the last two years of the Bush administration, conservatives were taking shots at President Bush for all his profligate spending, and it was never framed in terms other than “Republicans are mad at Bush for all the spending.”
How inconsistent that the media loved disgruntled conservatives being disenchanted with Bush, but abhor criticism of President Obama.
There are people of all colors who believe we are literally mortgaging our children’s futures with this spending spree. These people would have felt the same with if it were President Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Bill Richardson or any other president proposing the nationalization of 16 percent of our economy and spending like there’s no tomorrow.
Ironically, I wonder how President Carter would view things if it were President Clarence Thomas proposing tax relief, protection for the unborn, raising the troop levels in Afghanistan or exploring for oil right here in the United States.
As Arsenio Hall used to say, “It’s something that makes you say ‘Hmmm.’ “
J.C. Watts (JCWatts01@jcwatts.com) is chairman of J.C. Watts Companies, a business consulting group. He is former chairman of the Republican Conference of the U.S. House, where he served as an Oklahoma representative from 1995 to 2002. He writes for the Review-Journal twice monthly.
Americans are broadly satisfied with the quality of their own medical care and healthcare costs, but of the two, satisfaction with costs lags. Overall, 80% are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them, including 39% who are very satisfied. Sixty-one percent are satisfied with the cost of their medical care, including 20% who are very satisfied.
The 15% who are uninsured are far less satisfied with the quality of their medical care (50% are satisfied), and only 27% are satisfied with their healthcare costs. (Sixty-nine percent are dissatisfied with their costs.)
So let that last statement sink in. Even the majority of uninsured are satisfied with the level of care they receive. They are far more worried about the costs and that is understandable because their out-of-pocket expense is much higher than someone with insurance which brings us to another problem. If people have the attitude of “heck with it the insurance or the government will pay for it” that is exactly a primary reason why medical inflation is too high.
People without insurance are more likely to shop for the best deal, if we had medical savings accounts the opening expenses of those with health insurance would be controlled directly by the customer and they would want a good deal too which would help drive down medical costs, fraud, waste and abuse.
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.”
The note was a follow-up to Ensign’s questioning at the markup.
This is very disturbing. And by the way, what is it with the far left and their hostility towards freedom of speech and conscience? Well the far left is statist and absolutely convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority…perhaps that has something to do with it.
Senator McConnell protests from the Senate Floor. Here is the entire clip – WATCH IT:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to go to the Senate floor on Tuesday to call out the Obama administration for using the full power of a federal regulatory agency to suppress free speech — specifically, to silence Humana’s predictions about the impact of proposed ObamaCare cuts to the Medicare Advantage program — led ABC, but not CBS or NBC, to air a story on the “gag order.”
ABC’s story began with a McConnell soundbite (“’Shut up,’ the government says, ‘don’t communicate with your customers. Be quiet and get in line,’”), before reporter Jonathan Karl explained McConnell was referring to the “Department of Health and Human Services, telling insurance companies who serve Medicare recipients, to stop ‘misleading’ and ‘confusing’ mailings, saying, quote: ‘We are instructing you to immediately discontinue all such mailings, and remove any related materials from your Web sites.’”
Karl continued: “The extraordinary order comes in response to a mailing the Humana insurance company sent to customers in the Medicare Advantage program. The Humana mailing warned that because of Medicare cuts in the health care reform bills, quote, ‘millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many important benefits and services.’”
ABC News actually does a story on this…wow:
On Monday, HHS offered “guidance” to silence criticism: “MEDICARE ISSUES NEW GUIDANCE TO INSURANCE COMPANIES ON MEDICARE MAILINGS.”
So far, the government’s power play has succeeded. “Humana backed down, stopping the mailing and announcing that it would cooperate with the investigation,” James Taranto noted in his Monday “Best of the Web,” lamenting: “Corporations may provide lots of useful goods and services, but never count on them to take a stand for freedom.”
Now the question is, will the media champion free speech and be outraged by the abuse of power to suppress it, or will most journalists not mind the government hushing voices which go against Obama?
The story on the Tuesday, September 22 World News on ABC (transcript provided by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth):
CHARLES GIBSON: In Washington, the Senate Finance Committee today began voting on amendments to the health care reform bill, and the bill that comes out of that committee will become the centerpiece for the health care debate. But even before the amendment process began, a war of words broke out over what one of the nation’s largest health insurance companies is saying about the bill. Here’s Jonathan Karl.
JONATHAN KARL: It’s not often you hear language like this on the Senate floor.
MITCH MCCONNELL, SENATE MINORITY LEADER: “Shut up,” the government says, “don’t communicate with your customers. Be quiet and get in line.”
KARL: He’s talking about this order issued last night by the Department of Health and Human Services, telling insurance companies who serve Medicare recipients to stop “misleading” and “confusing” mailings, saying, quote, “We are instructing you to immediately discontinue all such mailings, and remove any related materials from your Web sites.” The extraordinary order comes in response to a mailing the Humana insurance company sent to customers in the Medicare Advantage program.
The Humana mailing warned that because of Medicare cuts in the health care reform bills, quote, “millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many important benefits and services.” But Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus says it is misleading to say his bill cuts Medicare benefits and ordered the HHS to investigate, prompting the gag order. Some legal experts say the order is unconstitutional. Senator McConnell agrees.
MCCONNELL: We cannot allow government officials to target individuals or companies because they do not like what they say.
KARL: And even some Democratic Senators are concerned that the bill now before the Senate Finance Committee reduces spending on Medicare Advantage by $123 billion.
SENATOR BILL NELSON (D-FL): I think it would be intolerable to ask the senior citizens on Medicare who have it to give up substantial health benefits that they’re enjoying under Medicare.
KARL: HHS declined a request for an on-camera interview, but told us that they are investigating whether the mailings illegally give the impression that they are official communications from Medicare. While that investigation goes forward, Charlie, the gag order remains in place.
First of all lets answer some common objections/myths.
They say the USA spends too much on health care.
There are four reasons for this.
1. Our system has a primary focus on saving lives and improving their quality, whereas some other systems focus is on saving money and preserving the “system”.
2. Americans are wealthier and we just have more money to spend on it. It is important not to underestimate this reason. As always the more money you have the more you spend.
3. We have lots of injured military veterans who need care, more than most other countries.
4. The United States has an aging baby boom problem that is worse than most other countries, so it is understandable that the expense of end of life care is higher for us.
So comparing our expenses with most other countries is NOT an apples to apples comparison.
They say that the WHO does not put the United States high on its health care list. I put the details (with links) of those WHO reports on this web site in detail. Come to find out that the WHO weighs heavily in its ranking where the health care dollars come from. Since in the USA much of it does not come from government the WHO penalizes us in the ratings. So in essence they lower our score for the simple reason that we don’t have nationalized health care.
The WHO Report does say that the USA is number 1 in patient responsiveness and level of care and as far as I am concerned that is the stat that really counts.
The WHO divides their report into sections – Here is the section on patient responsiveness and level of care – the United States is ranked number 1 http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex06_en.pdf
The WHO ranks the United States overall as 37 because we don’t have socialized health care so that doesn’t meet socialist standard of “fairness”. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf – look here and do a search for the words “fairness in contributions” to see for yourself.
As far as life expectancy. Our life expectancy numbers include how many people we lose in wars, drug gangsters who shoot each other etc so that number is not an honest assessment of the level of care we get in the United States.
We do not have a health care crisis here in the United States as most doctors and hospitals will treat you and worry about the bill later. Also the vast majority of people do have health insurance.
The main problem here in the USA is the way the bills are paid takes the market forces out all together, so people think to themselves, “Heck with it the government or the insurance company will pay for it so who cares”. So the rate of health care inflation is too high but this is not difficult to fix, but since neither party wants to give the other a legislative victory simple fixes like this don’t get done. Medical savings accounts is one way to help solve that problem.
As for the 20 million who are uninsured who cant afford their own insurance the government could just give them a voucher that covers 80% of the cost of their health care premium. That would cost about 50 billion a year which is much cheaper than a multi trillion dollar take over of the system or the current plan offered in our Congress.
Another smart thing that government can do is to allow doctors and hospitals to write off 90% of all free health care expenses they give to the poor off their taxes. Since our corporate income tax rate is an outrageous 35% there is lots of room to do that.
Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors’ own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.
It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration’s claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.
The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors’ positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.
Major findings included:
• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration’s claims that doctors are part of an “unprecedented coalition” supporting a medical overhaul.
It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a “majority of physicians want public and private insurance options,” and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday’s front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline “Doctors Go For Obama’s Reform.”
Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the “association representing the nation’s physicians” and what “many still regard as the country’s premier lobbying force” — is “lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama’s sweeping plan.”
The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA’s support of Democrats’ proposed health care overhaul.
•Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.
More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll’s finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting.
After making a spectacle by saying that the health care bill would NOT cover illegal aliens in spite of a Congressional Research Service Report that states otherwise (LINK) and in spite of Democrats blocking all attempts to insert language determining of those receiving benefits were citizens; now President Obama says that we should just make illegal aliens legal.
President Obama said this week that his health care plan won’t cover illegal immigrants, but argued that’s all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.
He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered – a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.
“Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don’t simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. “That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.
Mr. Obama added, “If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.”
Republicans said that amounts to an amnesty, calling it a backdoor effort to make sure current illegal immigrants get health care.
How can the White House bring together such a cadre of wild extremists? Not only are your organs the property of the state, he says that animals should be able to sue YOU in court.
Sunstien’s upcoming book shows his rejection of the concept of free speech and the “marketplace of ideas” and argues that government should intervene to revoke free speech and censor the internet.
Another question, why are SO many academics in our universities obvious nuts like this man? What attracts such clearly judgment impaired people to academia and why does academia embrace them, at times with the zeal of a defense attorney?
…recent history has demonstrated that for FAR too many college administrators and professors the reasoning and purpose of the First Amendment completely escapes them. How is it that one can leave high school having a basic understanding of freedom of speech and then leave graduate school having no ability to grasp the concept whatsoever?
Beck on Sunstien and Lloyd and their stated desire to censor:
While Barack Obama insists that the idea that ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants is a “myth,” the CRS points out that the bill does nothing to prevent it. Since HR3200 doesn’t require people to establish citizenship or legal residency before applying to exchanges for health insurance, including the public option, taxpayer money will certainly flow to illegal immigrants:
In what he called the “first myth” being spread by critics of his proposal for a government-run health care system, Obama said they are wrong in claiming illegal immigrants will be covered: “That is not true. Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has not even been on the table.” Obama said.
Well, Mr. President, that idea must have been tucked under a stack of background briefing papers over there in the corner of the table because the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says this about H.R. 3200, the Obamacare bill approved just before the recess by the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA:
“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”
CRS reports do not get released to the public. CRS offers private analysis to members of Congress on request, but rarely do they see the light of day. However, David Freddoso got his hands on a copy of the 11-page analysis, “Treatment of Non-Citizens in HR3200″ late last night, and confirmed Tapscott’s reading:
In its subsection on health insurance subsidies (known as “affordability credits”), HR 3200 does state, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” That would seem to solve the problem, but it’s more rhetoric than reality. The bill contains no verification requirement or enforcement process for citizenship or legal residency, as exists for other federal benefit programs. The only verification required for the subsidies pertains to family income. Beyond that, as the CRS report notes, everything is left in the hands of the Health Choices Commissioner.
House Democrats defeated all attempts in committee to add an enforcement mechanism that would require proof of citizenship or legal residency for those getting subsidies.
Be sure to read it all. If Congress tells us that no money will go to cover illegal aliens, we can show them the CRS report and ask them to stop spreading myths.
This is much more than your typical partisan response. Obama is being so in your face dishonest that pointing out the truth is easy and uncomplicated. If Obama’s spin continues to be this outrageous and dishonest he may prove to be the biggest gift to Republicans since Jimmy Carter and I am not saying that because I oppose this policy, I say it because it is an obvious political reality.
Sarah Palin’s Wall Street Journal Op-Ed is in the previous post HERE.
Politico gets the talking points sent out by the White House:
A source sends on the talking points the White House is circulating to allies in advance of President Obama’s speech, most of them reiterating familiar themes of momentum and security.
But the White House has also chosen specifically to focus on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and evidently to make her the face of the opposition, or to respond to her ability to project herself into the debate. She is the only Republican named in the talking points.
Here’s that section:
On Gov. Palin’s Attacks
Every non-partisan organization that has looked at her claims say they are false. And the ideas in her op-ed are both scary and risky. Eliminating Medicare and giving our seniors vouchers instead is a bad idea that we shouldn’t adopt.
Here is the problem. Changing the way Medicare works with vouchers isn’t getting rid of Medicare at all, it just changes its internal structure so its less bureaucratic and likely more efficient. The White House is spinning hard here. Medicare was 10 times over budget in its first 20 years because it was implemented so poorly and here comes Obama with a Oregon like state health plan for the nation that has been tried and demonstrated to be a disaster. Vouchers on the other hand have worked very will with schools and other programs. In fact in Washington DC the program worked so well and saved so much money that the employee and teachers union got the politicians to kill it because it showed just how bad they were performing.
I’m pleased that the White House is finally responding to Republican health care ideas instead of pretending they don’t exist.[1] But in doing so President Obama should follow his own sound advice and avoid making “wild misrepresentations”.[2] Medicare vouchers would give everyone on Medicare the chance to decide for themselves which health plan to use, rather than leave that decision to government bureaucrats. Such proposals are the kind of health care reform that Republicans stand for: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven.
The White House talking points leave the rest of my arguments unanswered. They don’t respond to the idea that all individuals should get the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; that we must reform our tort laws; and that we should allow Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The White House also fails to respond to the Nyce/Schieber study indicating that wages will fall if the government expands coverage without reducing health care inflation rates.
One last thing: after President Obama’s speech tonight, listen for which pundits use the words “false”, “scary”, and “risky” in describing the proposals I put forward. That’s how you’ll be able to tell who the White House counted as “allies” worthy of receiving its talking points. [emphasis ours - Editor]
Our Take- test a voucher program on the uninsured/under-insured first to work any bugs out and then try to fix Medicare so it doesn’t go broke and our seniors can still have a safety net. Doing nothing means certain doom for Medicare and raising enough taxes to fix it as it is now is certain doom for the economy. Does anyone find it amusing that “hope& change” is now arguing for just a whole lot more of the status quo and it is Sarah Palin who is offering up substantive ideas for change?
Politically, Sarah Palin is obviously running for president as she is running against him right now for all intensive purposes. Expect Palin to take Obama and the Democrats on point by point with substantive plans and ideas like this one.
MITCH MCCONNELL, SENATE MINORITY LEADER: “Shut up,” the government says, “don’t communicate with your customers. Be quiet and get in line.”
KARL: And even some Democratic Senators are concerned that the bill now before the Senate Finance Committee reduces spending on Medicare Advantage by $123 billion.