The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for September 10th, 2009

ABC’s John Stossel on nationalized health Care, Canada, and Obama.

Posted by iusbvision on September 10, 2009

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Congressional Research Service: ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants

Posted by iusbvision on September 10, 2009

UPDATE – Obama: Make illegal aliens legal to get them health care – (LINK).

Can we say Obama lied now? Is there any way he did not know wbout this CRS report?

Via Hotair.com and the Washington Examiner:

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.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Krauthammer: Why Obama’s speech was a fraud.

Posted by iusbvision on September 10, 2009

One minute and thirty-nine seconds of devastating logic and reason.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

GOP Chairman Steele responds to Obama speech.

Posted by iusbvision on September 10, 2009

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.

This is worth watching.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

ACORN Caught with Hidden Camera: Conspiring to aid in prostitution, tax fraud, bank fraud, child sex trafficking! UPDATE – The other shoe drops, they did the video sting at multiple offices!

Posted by iusbvision on September 10, 2009

UPDATE V – ACORN office number five! San Diego ACORN offered to help smuggle the teen sex workers through Mexico! This video was released on the Sean Hannity Show moments ago September 16th 2009.

UPDATE IV – San Bernardino ACORN office sting. Worst yet so far –  LINK.

UPDATE III – Now the New York office has been caught, same sting – LINK.

UPDATE II

UPDATE – ACORN has a problem, they are blaming a couple of rogue employees at one office and saying that they are not representative of the organization, but after this startling revelation at the Baltimore ACORN office, it has been revealed that multiple offices engaged in illegal conduct on hidden camera.  – LINK

One day after two ACORN officials in Baltimore were fired for offering to help a man and woman posing as a pimp and prostitute to engage in child prostitution and a series of tax crimes, another secretly shot videotape has surfaced that shows the same couple getting similar advice from ACORN officers in Washington.

The newly released videotape, shot on July 25, shows ACORN staffers explaining to the pair how they can hide the woman’s professed work — prostitution — and get a loan that will help them establish a brothel.

James O’Keefe, a 25-year-old independent filmmaker, posed as the pimp while visiting the ACORN office, accompanied by 20-year-old Hannah Giles, who posed as the prostitute. On a videotape provided to FOXNews.com, they are seen receiving guidance to establish the woman as the sole proprietor of a bogus company to mask the nature of her business.

“She’s not going to put on (the loan application) that she’s doing prostitution … she doesn’t have to,” the ACORN staffer says. “You don’t have to sit back and tell people what you do.”

• Click here to see video.

ACORN is taxpayer funded and Obama used to work as a trainer and them a lawyer for them.

On video and totally, totally busted. ABC, NBC, CBC etc… refuse to report it.

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Government Gone Wild, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

White House Unsettled by Palin Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal – Name Calling. UPDATE – Palin Responds!

Posted by iusbvision on September 10, 2009

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.

UPDATESarah Palin responds:

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]

-Sarah Palin

[1] See http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/White_House_talking_points_blast_Palin.html.
[2] See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16obama.html.

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.

Update II – Hotair.com comments HERE.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Palin Truth Squad | Leave a Comment »

Sarah Palin in Wall Street Journal: How to start fixing health care

Posted by iusbvision on September 10, 2009

WSJ Sarah Palin:

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that “no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.” Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

palin woodsWe also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.”

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep.

Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .”

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .”

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration.

Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats’ proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.

sarahpalin-planeThe economic effects won’t be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they’ll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats’ proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise “the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers.” Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.

Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats’ proposals “will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.” Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.

Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.”

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Palin Truth Squad | Leave a Comment »

Video: DeMint challenges Obama to line-by-line review of ObamaCare

Posted by iusbvision on September 10, 2009

We have read the bill and Palin/Demint/Gingrich/Morris etc etc.  are quite right about the bill. By the way if ANY professor here at IUSB or Notre Dame would like to debate the IUSB Vision editor on this bill and why the term “Death Panel” may be justified just let us know.

As we said before, by “death panel” it is not as Obama tried to frame the argument as a board that decides what grandmothers  to kill or “unplug”…rather it will decide who gets plugged in and who does not.

But I want to hear him defend his bill. I want him to open up the house bill that was passed and actually point to sections…and say it is in there, read it… I don’t want to hear any generalities, I don’t want to hear any more false promises… He needs to defend his plan and not just criticize those of us who are presenting alternatives.

Special thanks to Hotair.com for the video link!

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law | Leave a Comment »