Big Dogs House

From The I Told You So File

May 19, 2010 Political

First up, the health care takeover. Barack Obama promised people that if they liked their insurance and their doctors, they could keep them. This is not the case as the way the law is set up companies have determined they would be better off dropping employees and paying the fines. Companies can save upwards of a billion dollars:

Even with penalties in place for employers who decline to provide health insurance, documents showed that Caterpillar could reduce its health care costs by as much as 70 percent and AT&T could save as much as $1.8 billion by shifting their employees into public programs. Reason.com

In addition, the law will end up costing more than we were told and will end up costing us money, not saving any as Barack Obama said.

The Congressional Budget Office now reports that the law will require an additional $115 billion in previously unreported (and yet unpaid-for) discretionary spending. Medicare’s actuary has reported that total medical spending in the U.S. will actually go up and that crucial cuts to Medicare—cuts being used to pay for the law’s new entitlement spending—aren’t likely to happen, but that Medicare benefits are likely to be reduced. And in Massachusetts, the state whose 2006 health care overhaul served as the model for ObamaCare, insurers have gone to war with the governor, and the state treasurer is warning that the program could drive the state into bankruptcy. Reason.com

In addition, more and more doctors in Texas are not taking Medicare patients because the reimbursements do not cover costs and doctors are losing money. Doctors in other states have decided not to take them as well and this trend will only continue with Obamacare.

Texas doctors are opting out of Medicare at alarming rates, frustrated by reimbursement cuts they say make participation in government-funded care of seniors unaffordable.

Two years after a survey found nearly half of Texas doctors weren’t taking some new Medicare patients, new data shows 100 to 200 a year are now ending all involvement with the program. Before 2007, the number of doctors opting out averaged less than a handful a year. Chron

It is not hard to see that this will begin to affect the elderly and though the left despises the term “death panel” the reduction in doctors taking Medicare will lead to the same outcome.

Perhaps this is why the regime is accelerating the better parts of the law (though they have their own drawbacks). The more appealing things in the law (appealing according to the Democrats) were front loaded and the bad things like the mandates were pushed well past the 2012 elections in order to allow Democrats (particularly Obama) to be reelected before they have to answer for what they have done. Now Democrats are speeding up the front loaded items in hopes they can save seats in November.

This will not work.

Finally, the left likes to blame the economic problems we are having on the Bush tax cuts. The tax cuts did not cause the problems and, contrary to popular myth, Bill Clinton did not have a multi-trillion dollar budget surplus. He had one year with a budget surplus (not zero deficit) which means that the amount the government took in was less than it spent. A budget surplus is not necessarily a surplus. Budgetary tricks and moving things off budget can give the appearance of surplus when one does not exist. However, there was never trillions in surplus:

First, that $5.6 trillion surplus never actually existed (the budget surplus peaked at $236 billion in 2000). Instead, $5.6 trillion represents the cumulative 2002-2011 budget surplus that was projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in early 2001. Instead, the United States is now projected to run a $6.1 trillion deficit over those 10 years — an $11.7 trillion swing. Washington Times

The Times article is interesting and shows how the budget numbers are manipulated and lied about. The federal government has never really had a budget surplus anywhere other than on paper. Unfortunately, what is written on the paper is often not reality.

But let us suppose there was a 4 trillion dollar surplus when Bush took office (to be sure there absolutely was not but let’s pretend) . That means the government took in 4 trillion dollars more than it needed in by way of taxes. If this was the case then Bush did nothing more than give the money back to its rightful owners. The government should not be generating more than it needs and if it does it needs to give the money back. It is ours and if they get more of it than they need they find ways to spend it.

Another myth is that the tax cuts were for the rich and hurt the poor. This myth is dispelled in the article which also points out that the sun-setting of the Bush tax cuts will further hurt the poor and middle class whose taxes will go up higher than for those who make more money.

These are things I have discussed in the past and which have been denied by the drones on the progressive left. They did not go for it then and they will not go for it now even though the information is there in black and white.

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: Bush, cost, health care, lies, Obama, tax cuts

The Rangel Rope-A-Dope

Jun 14, 2009 Political

Charlie Rangel and his Democrat buddies are working on the Obama health care plan. The plan is supposed to provide health care coverage (we all have access) to those who have no health insurance. The actual number of people who have no health insurance is about a quarter of what politicians report because their numbers include people who have access but choose not to have it, are not entitled (illegals), and those who were without for a short period of time (like in between jobs and elected not to take the COBRA extension). The numbers also include those who are eligible for already available assistance but, for whatever reason, have not signed up.

The Democrats want to rush this trough like they did the bogus stimulus package so that people do not have time to react. They want to have this in place quickly before people find out what it costs and what it involves. Democrats will use sleight of hand and trickery to gain acceptance. They will display a grandiose health plan and talk about all the bells and whistles and how wonderful it will be but they will not talk about how it will be paid for. Sure, they will claim it saves money or that we can afford it by taxing the rich or other such nonsense but they will not discuss specifics. Charlie Rangel wants to make people feel real good about it all before he hammers them with the specifics. He must believe that once people are thrilled they will be less likely to oppose any method to pay for it. The only ones who will not oppose are the ones who won’t pay for it anyway.

In other words, they will not be discussing the $600 BILLION in tax increases required to pay for this monster. We cannot get that much money by taxing the rich so taxes will involve a lot of other folks. First they will consider taxing the health benefits that employers provide. Then they will continue to add taxes until they have forced everyone into government care or until the plan has grown into a monster like Medicare which is more expensive than private run insurance (the 2-3% operating costs are lies) and is less efficient. Rangel said he wants to butter people up before hitting them with the tax bill:

Rangel said that while House Democrats will likely release more details about health policy changes in their legislation next week, the package of offsetting tax increases and spending cuts likely will come later. Democrats, he said, want to put forth the more-positive aspects of an overhaul first. Rangel also wants to let lawmakers have time to study and weigh in on proposed offsets.

“We have a problem in not wanting to attract enough negative attention to the bill in terms of the pay-fors,” he said. “Let them get a good feel for the coverage.” Bloomberg

They have a problem in not wanting to attract enough negative attention to the bill in terms of the pay-fors. That means he does not want to put emphasis on how it will be paid for because it will garner negative attention, as it should. Rangel and his buddies, as indicated above, will roll out the plan without specifics regarding costs and then, later, hit us with the particulars on the cost.

They can’t let a crisis go to waste by telling us the truth because we might get negative.

The government does not belong in health care. It cannot run anything efficiently and it cannot run anything effectively. Everything government touches becomes bloated and suffers cost overruns.

Obama wants this rushed through. He and the Democrats are rushing head first into this with little regard to the consequences. They are going for this without long and proper debates reagrding the pros and cons of any government devised system. They are forcing their will on us.

Will it take a revolution before these people understand that they work for us? Will it take a revolution before they understand that we want smaller, limited government?

Anyone who does not pay taxes and ends up getting free health care (paid for by the tax payers) should have to work every weekend cleaning streets, picking up trash, cutting grass and cleaning graffiti.

When I was a kid my dad would make me get a certain kind of haircut. He said if he was paying for it he got to decide on the style. Those of us paying for other’s health care should have a say in just what care they get.

But remember, you will hear a lot about how wonderful it will be but you won’t hear much about cost. Rangel and the rest of the tax cheats will screw us with that later on.

Related:
Hospitals not happy with part of the plan

Tags: cost, health care, rangel, tax increases, trickery

What A Difference Being A Liberal Makes

Jan 15, 2009 Political

Barack Obama is getting ready to take a train ride through Delaware and Maryland on his way to DC for his coronation. He will pick up Gaffe-O-Matic VP Elect Joe Biden in his home state and make a stop in Baltimore. Obama and Biden will spend an hour at The War Memorial in an area designed to hold 30,000. The police expect 100,000. It is expected to be bitter cold and people will start being screened around 1100 (11 am) for the 1700 (5 pm) visit. The cost to the state of Maryland; around 11 million dollars.

The state had about a 1.5 billion dollar deficit last year and the Democrats raised taxes. Now we have a 2 billion dollar deficit and the state is spending 11 million for an hour visit from Obama. This is all taking place while the Governor reveals that he will be laying off state employees because he is incompetent and cannot run a state or a budget (yes you O’Malley you lop eared, beady eyed, liberal moron).

Keeping in mind we are on our way to a depression and that the Democrats who caused this mess (with the assistance of a lot of Republicans) are now completely in charge; how do you suppose they will act during the inauguration?

Why, spend, spend, spend, of course. The total event in DC will cost upwards of 70 million dollars and in addition to the millions it will cost Maryland, Virginia and other nearby states will bear the burden of costs related to the event as well.

A lot of the money is provided by donors of the sort that Obama swore would not be involved in the process but that is for another day. Regardless of how much he has raised for the shindig, there will be a lot of money spent on the event. I imagine that when all the nearby states are included, the cost to set up and to clean up as well as the additional security, the total will be near 100 million dollars.

One would imagine that the media and the liberals around the country would be up in arms about the expense especially when we are in the midst of economic collapse but they are on board. They want to attend the balls and the parties and be involved in this “historic” event. As Laurie Kellman of the AP relayed:

So you’re attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable?

To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must.

“This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment. Do not dress down. Do not wear the Washington uniform,” said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian and Chief Creative Officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc.

“Just because the economy is in a downturn, it doesn’t mean that style is going to be in a downturn,” agreed Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus.

And if anyone does raise an eyebrow at those sequins, remind them that optimism is good for times like these. “Just say you’re doing it to help the economy,” chuckled good manners guru Letitia Baldridge

In the past the AP has stated that the inauguration was to extravagant and that it needed to be scaled down. Yes, we could buy food for the poor and health care for those who need it with all that money. Then again, this complaint was lodged when George Bush was the one taking the oath of office. Then, the AP complained about the cost and the extra security and how bad it was:

President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?

■ 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.

■ Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.

■ A down payment on the nation’s deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year….

The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?

New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent Roosevelt’s inauguration during World War II. Newsbusters (first quote from this article as well)

This is what I have said about the left all along. If they are doing it then it is OK but if a Republican is doing it then the tribunals must start. Look at all the corruption that has been displayed by the left in the last 6 months or so. Tax evasion, corruption, bribes, pay to play, sweetheart deals for spouses and any number of other things but not one word on THEIR culture of corruption. Let a Republican fart and there are calls for resignation. William Jefferson was caught taking 90 THOUSAND DOLLARS in bribe money and the only way he was removed from the House was by the voters rejection of him. Nancy Pelosi did nothing. If you notice, it only seems to be the corrupt Republicans being tried and convicted.

But, back to Curious Barack and his inauguration. The articles cited demonstrate clearly what the MSM openly displayed during the last campaign and that is, they are the media wing of the Democratic party. They see the same things different ways depending upon the party of the person involved and they are so squarely in Obama’s gluteal region that they can see the bottom of his heart.

I hope the MSM enjoys the balls and the parties because this is probably the last joy they will have. Major newspapers are on the verge of collapsing and newsrooms are getting smaller. I say goodbye and good riddance. The only thing that would be better would be if Keith Olberdouche lost his job and I got to punch him in the mouth on his way out the door.

I can’t totally blame the liberals though. George Bush has become the facilitator in chief for these ass clowns by declaring a state of emergency in DC for the event. This means that unlimited taxpayer dollars will be available for the event. Yes, we will be forced to pay for this because President Bush decided to open the federal wallet. Can you imagine how Democrats would have reacted if he had done this for his own inauguration thus ensuring federal tax dollars to fund it? I can’t blame him for declaring the emergency though.

Obama is going to be the president and that means a state of emergency will exist for the entire country.

God help us.

Be sure to buy guns and ammo.

Tags: coronation, cost, emergency, inauguration, media bias, Obama