It never ceases to amaze me how many people think that the government running the health care in this country will make things better. I am continually amazed at how many people actually believe that the government being involved means that it will cost less money. The government does not do things at lower costs than private industry and government programs become bloated rapidly.

There is also the issue of results. Government not only runs over budget and costs more money than it should (and likewise spends more on programs than it should) it also simply does not do things very well.

Just last week the government tested the national alert system that would allow a president to speak to almost all people in this country at once in the event of an emergency. The test was announced well in advance and the planning was ongoing. The big day came and the government, those competent folks who can do it all, failed miserably. Many locations did not get the alert, other locations had no sound and some folks did not even realize the test had occurred because there was nothing to indicate it had.

The people who planned and put this in place are the same kind of people who will be running your health care. These folks cannot complete a relatively simple task of sending a message across the country. Yes, it is a complex issue but it is relatively simple when one compares it to health care. The government will fail in that venture many times over.

What government will do is become bloated and cost lots of money. This happens in all programs. Social Security should be relatively simple. Pay in, retire, and get retirement check. The government has added so many things and made so many people entitled to “benefits” that it takes an army of government workers to manage Social Security. And because it is government it takes a lot more employees than it would in the private sector.

Social Security has become bloated over decades but it does not take that long for any government program to expand. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the folks who molest you at the airports, has only been around for about ten years. A Congressional report shows it is bloated and ineffective. The report indicates there are 65,000 workers but even with all those there were 25,000 security breaches in the last decade.

In ten years the TSA has become a bloated and ineffective organization (many would argue that this occurred much earlier) and it is a relatively small organization. Compare it to what will be required when government intrudes in the health care arena and the amount of bloat and the level of ineffectiveness will be greatly multiplied.

Government is slow, cumbersome, big, wasteful, and ineffective and all government programs continue to grow each year.

Obamacare will grow into a larger program than any other redistributive effort the US has undertaken (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) and it will cost a lot more than any of those programs. The people who support it claim it will save money but it will not. Unfortunately, like all government programs, by the time we see that it is too expensive and does not work it will be well underway. Government usually gets the estimates wrong but does not admit it until long after it has wasted billions (if not trillions) of dollars of taxpayer money and enslaved millions of people.

Thus, enslaved to a program they are enslaved to government. Just the way the politicians want it.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

In his weekly address to the American People, or at least the segment who can listen to him speak without reflexively gagging, the Resident tried to link jobs to the healthcare debate. This is an old gambit, not the exclusive property of the Dems- linking a failing project to another failing project, in a negative + negative = a positive.

Sorry Mr. Resident, that does not compute- both the stimulus AND the healthcare problem are still bad ideas. Spending money we do not have is always a bad idea, whether for an individual or a person, and that is the bottom line- but it doesn’t stop our Pretender in Chief from trying.

When I took office eight months ago, our nation was in the midst of an economic crisis unlike any we’d seen in generations. While I was confident that our economy would recover, we know that employment is often the last thing to come back after a recession. Our task is to do everything we possibly can to accelerate that process.

And we’ve certainly made progress on this front since the period last winter when we were losing an average of 700,000 jobs each month. But yesterday’s report on September job losses was a sobering reminder that progress comes in fits and starts, and that we will need to grind out this recovery step by step.

That’s why I’m working closely with my economic team to explore additional options to promote job creation. And I won’t let up until those who seek jobs can find them; until businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; and until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.

It won’t be easy. It will require us to lay a new foundation for our economy – one that gives our workers the skills and education they need to compete; that invests in renewable energy and the jobs of the future; and that makes health care affordable for families and businesses – particularly small businesses, many of which have been overwhelmed by rising health care costs.

whitehouse.gov

Blah, blah, blah- and then he tries to say that all will be rosy if we just pass the healthcare bill, which is the furthest thing from reality he could say-

Rising health care costs are undermining our businesses, exploding our deficits, and costing our nation more jobs with each passing month.

So we know that reforming our health insurance system will be a critical step in rebuilding our economy so that our entrepreneurs can pursue the American Dream again, and our small businesses can grow and expand and create new jobs again.

That is precisely what the reform legislation before Congress right now will do. Under these proposals, small businesses will be able to purchase health insurance through an insurance exchange, a marketplace where they can compare the price, quality and services of a wide variety of plans, many of which will provide better coverage at lower costs than the plans they have now.

whitehouse.gov

Really? My visits to the doctor will help my job situation? Not so much– the last time I went to the doctor, I had to pay him- he wasn’t giving me money- so this might help the Doctor, but not so much myself. The Resident’s logic is flawed- but then it seems that is the case for most liberals, or socialists, or whatever they are now calling themselves- I call them deluded.

Case in point- Robert Reich-someone who is supposed to be intelligent, and he comes off sounding like an idiot.

So why is unemployment and underemployment so high, and why is it likely to remain high for some time? Because, as noted, people who are worried about their jobs or have no jobs, and who are also trying to get out from under a pile of debt, are not going do a lot of shopping. And businesses that don’t have customers aren’t going do a lot of new investing. And foreign nations also suffering high unemployment aren’t going to buy a lot of our goods and services.

And without customers, companies won’t hire. They’ll cut payrolls instead.

Which brings us to the obvious question: Who’s going to buy the stuff we make or the services we provide, and therefore bring jobs back? There’s only one buyer left: The government.

Let me say this as clearly and forcefully as I can: The federal government should be spending even more than it already is on roads and bridges and schools and parks and everything else we need. It should make up for cutbacks at the state level, and then some. This is the only way to put Americans back to work. We did it during the Depression. It was called the WPA.

Yes, I know. Our government is already deep in debt. But let me tell you something: When one out of six Americans is unemployed or underemployed, this is no time to worry about the debt.

robertreich.blogspot.com

Uh, yeah, right- What?!  Try saying that, but instead of government, insert the concept of an individual- when an individual is unemployed, now is not the time to worry about the individual’s debt. That doesn’t make sense does it? Neither do his next paragraphs-

When I was a small boy my father told me that I and my kids and my grand-kids would be paying down the debt created by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Depression and World War II. I didn’t even know what a debt was, but it kept me up at night.

My father was right about a lot of things, but he was wrong about this. America paid down FDR’s debt in the 1950s, when Americans went back to work, when the economy was growing again, and when our incomes grew, too. We paid taxes, and in a few years that FDR debt had shrunk to almost nothing.

robertreich.blogspot.com

Read that slowly, because it offers some insight on liberal progressives- they can’t add. If you start with the debt accumulated during the Depression, in, say 1930- and then jump forward to when Robert says we paid down that debt in the fifties- well, that is twenty years- a generation. So it would be true, despite Robert’s words, that his kids would be paying on that debt.

And that debt is nothing compared to this one- so the Resident wants us to add to the debt by piling on a trillion dollar healthscare plan- once again, I say it- Liberals can’t add, nor apparently should they be entrusted with other people’s money- because they will spend it- extravagantly. Just witness the cost for the “lost” trip to Copenhagen- millions of dollars wasted- and the Resident apparently doesn’t think that is a big deal. What ignorant arrogance.

The Resident could have made a difference- but instead chose to help out his cronies, ACORN, the Unions, and all the rest of the goons that helped him get elected. But he has forgotten one thing- or perhaps it just never occurred to an Ego like his- it is not about him- it is about the people of this country, all the people of this country.

And if the people are pushing back this hard, there is probably a very good reason.

Perhaps he should find out what that reason might be.

I’m just saying.

The Liberal Democrat wing of Congress keeps trying to put the square peg of a public option into the round hole that is health care, and cannot seem to grasp that it just won’t fit- I guess they are just not smart enough- perhaps they need healthcare to fix that stubborn moronic condition- if it turns out to be genetic, John Holdren will sterilize their families. Gladly- our own little Dr. Mengele is always glad to play God.

In the meantime, you might think that Congress would  actually look at what works, and what does not, in the world of Healthcare- but apparently, once the ideological concrete sets, no jackhammer of logic will work on it.

First, let’s look at what does not work- the Canadian public option.

When the pain in Christina Woodkey’s legs became so severe that she could no longer hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she’d need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she’d have to wait about a year.

So wait she did.

In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. ‘When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery,’ said Woodkey, 72. ‘They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor.’

So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days. ‘I don’t have insurance. We’re not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada,’ Woodkey said. ‘It’s not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I’m happy to say the pain is almost all gone.’

online.wsj.com

What has to hurt almost as much as the pain itself is the dismissive attitude of cost- cutting bureaucrats- people that liberals say, like the yeti or UFOs, do not exist.  Waiting for treatment just has to suck- perhaps Congress should try that.

Whereas U.S. healthcare is predominantly a private system paid for by private insurers, things in Canada tend toward the other end of the spectrum: A universal, government-funded health system is only beginning to flirt with private-sector medicine.

Hoping to capitalize on patients who might otherwise go to the U.S. for speedier care, a network of technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers has sprung up in British Columbia, echoing a trend in Quebec. In October, the courts will be asked to decide whether the budding system should be sanctioned. More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests such as MRIs with waits as short as a week or two, compared with the months it takes for a public surgical suite to become available for nonessential operations.

online.wsj.com

Well there- the Canadian system sucks, that is plain- as the liberals are fond of saying, “The debate is settled.” but there must surely be something that does work, at least better than Canada, right? Anything is better than that.

And yes, there is something better-

Like every other country in Europe, Switzerland guarantees health care for all its citizens. But the system here does not remotely resemble the model of bureaucratic, socialized medicine often cited by opponents of universal coverage in the United States.

Swiss private insurers are required to offer coverage to all citizens, regardless of age or medical history. And those people, in turn, are obligated to buy health insurance.

That is why many academics who have studied the Swiss health care system have pointed to this Alpine nation of about 7.5 million as a model that delivers much of what Washington is aiming to accomplish — without the contentious option of a government-run health insurance plan.

In Congress, the Senate Finance Committee is dealing with legislation proposed by its chairman, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, which would require nearly all Americans to buy health insurance, but stops short of the government-run insurance option that is still strongly supported by liberal Democrats.

nytimes.com

Yes, folks, the Swiss system is better in many ways than the Canadian system, and has things to offer the US system that could be incorporated without destroying the whole system- after all this capitalistic system, while flawed, has led to medical breakthroughs that otherwise would not have happened without the system of profitability available here. Controlled greed can be a good thing- it drives innovation.

By many measures, the Swiss are healthier than Americans, and surveys indicate that Swiss people are generally happy with their system. Switzerland, moreover, provides high-quality care at costs well below what the United States spends per person. Swiss insurance companies offer the mandatory basic plan on a not-for-profit basis, although they are permitted to earn a profit on supplemental plans.

And yet, as a potential model for the United States, the Swiss health care system involves some important trade-offs that American consumers, insurers and health care providers might find hard to swallow.

The Swiss government does not “ration care” — that populist bogeyman in the American debate — but it does keep down overall spending by regulating drug prices and fees for lab tests and medical devices. It also requires patients to share some costs — at a higher level than in the United States — so they have an incentive to avoid unnecessary treatments. And some doctors grumble that cost controls are making it harder these days for a physician to make a franc.

The Swiss government also provides direct cash subsidies to people if health insurance equals more than 8 percent of personal income, and about 35 to 40 percent of households get some form of subsidy. In some cases, employers contribute part of the insurance premium, but, unlike in the United States, they do not receive a tax break for it. (All the health care proposals in Congress would provide a subsidy to moderate-income Americans.)

nytimes.com

Good AND bad- as are most things, it seems there are pluses and minuses to even the Swiss plan. This is why we should cherry- pick what does work, and then apply this to our plans, instead of crafting something out of whole cloth that doesn’t fit. But apparently that doesn’t work for the Egos on Capitol Hill. Many, if not most, are working for their own glory, and barely have the people in mind when they plan these things.

There are also parts of the Swiss plan that some groups might find objectionable, like the elderly.

Unlike the United States, where the Medicare program for the elderly costs taxpayers about $500 billion a year, Switzerland has no special break for older Swiss people beyond the general subsidy.

“Switzerland’s health care system is different from virtually every other country in the world,” said Regina Herzlinger, a Harvard Business School professor who has studied the Swiss approach extensively.

nytimes.com

Yeahhhhhhhh- not so much- many older people need the Medicare subsidy, even though the roots of that program are socialist, as is Social Security and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid. But since the programs have been institutionalized in our society, they would be hard to root out, so they would need to be incorporated, not cut without a viable alternative.

The Swiss approach is also popular with patients like Frieda Burgstaller, 72, who says she likes the freedom of choice and access that the private system provides. “If the doctor says it has to be done, it’s done,” said Mrs. Burgstaller. “You don’t wait. And it’s covered.”

While many patients seem content, the burdens fall more heavily on doctors, especially general practitioners and pediatricians.

Dr. Gerlinde Schurter, Mrs. Burgstaller’s physician, says she feels squeezed by government regulators and insurance companies that have fought to hold down costs — most recently with a 15 percent cut in lab fees that forced her five-member group to lay off its principal technician.

Dr. Schurter also fears a so-called blue letter, a warning from an insurance company that she is prescribing too many drugs or expensive procedures.

If doctors cannot justify their treatments, they can be forced to repay insurers for a portion of the medical services prescribed. And while prescriptions are covered, the government has insisted that consumers fork over a 20 percent co-payment if they want brand-name drugs, rather than 10 percent for generics.

Similarly, the government health office also lowered reimbursements across the board for medical devices in 2006.

nytimes.com

Punishing Doctors is not a good thing, especially if you, as the government, are refusing to address the problem of  frivolous lawsuits that drive up the cost of Malpractice insurance. Tort reform has to be a pivotal part of this formula. If the doctors are going to have to earn less, so should the lawyers. The lawyers are a driver of the unnecessary overhead in terms of costs to insurance companies, and doctors. 

If you cannot control costs in all three of these areas, there will be no improvement- it has to be all three, or it will not work. Still, there is a downside in terms of cost, relative to the Swiss system.

Still, along with lower costs and the freedom to choose doctors come bigger bills for individual patients. On average, out-of-pocket payments come to $1,350 annually. That is the highest among the 30 countries tracked by the O.E.C.D. and well above the $890 average for the United States, which comes in second.

Then there are the hefty prices of the insurance policies themselves, which can top 14,000 Swiss francs a year for a family of four in Zurich, or about $13,600. That is roughly comparable to the national average annual premium for a family policy under employer-sponsored group plans in the United States, but in high-cost American cities the figure can be much higher.

Direct comparisons are hard to make, however, because in the American system, employers and employees share the cost of premiums, which are also exempt from individual and corporate income taxes.

nytimes.com

Good and bad- there is no system that fits everyone, so why try? What we need to do is find what fits the greatest amount of people.  There are parts of the Swiss system that are worth consideration- there might be other things that also merit discussion, but what Congress is attempting to do right now is to make sausage without a recipe, not a good idea at all, and doomed to failure. Even if they manage to actually make the sausage, there is absolutely no guarantee that we, as a nation, will be able to stomach what they are cooking up.

We really need to have a recipe before we begin to make this sausage.

Because we are going to have to chew on this for a long time, it needs to taste at least tolerable.

John Mackey, the CEO of that liberal bastion of gorp and grain, Whole Foods Market, has dared express his opinion of the Hussein Healthscare option, and lo and behold, he is not in lockstep with the rest of his zombie brethren.

That has the ultra- liberals grabbing pitchforks and torches to pursue this heretic into the swamp. They need to capture him to feed the Axlerod and the Emanuel, both carnivores who are not too picky who they chew on.

An organic CEO should taste just fine.

The grocery store Whole Foods is facing a boycott organized by liberal activists because the CEO opposes President Obama’s health care reform proposals. The company’s chief executive,John Mackey, wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed on health care that has roiled the liberal blogosphere and prompted calls for a boycott.

“While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system,” Mackey wrote in the WSJ.

politicsdaily.com

Wow- a liberal who gets it- this should be ground-breaking- perhaps some other liberals might listen. No? Actually, even for expressing his private opinion, Mr. Mackey is facing a boycott of his store- as if this action doesn’t hurt the other people who work there more. After all, if Whole Foods suffers a loss, do you really think that he will fire himself? Or perhaps just lay off someone who really needs the paycheck. I mean, who do you think you are hurting here?

After all, the man is expressing his private opinion, but in the Land of Hussein, you must have group- think or die.

“Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction — toward less government control and more individual empowerment.” 

The boycott leaders are organizing via the Huffington Post. “To me, it’s pretty basic: Mackey is working to oppose things I believe in, so I should stop giving him money,” wrote Ben Wyskida, who also works for the liberal magazine, The Nation. In a column titled “Why I’m Done with Whole Foods,” he said: “Mackey has confirmed for me that my money is going to support deregulation of the insurance industry, lies about the current health care proposal, and a crusade to lecture people who can’t access or can’t afford healthy food. I’m just not going to go there.”

politicsdaily.com

Yep, all the liberal bloggers are going to go without their granola for a week, just to make a point to Mr. Mackey that they are mad that he could have a reality-based opinion derived from real- world experiences of running a company, not just blogging from his parent’s basement with posters of Che taped to the dank walls. Just as an aside to all the self-righteous libs who “eat organic” (sorry, John- truth must be told)- regular produce is just as healthy, and cheaper too.

Here’s what I do not understand about liberals- I might not agree with 99% of Mr.Mackey’s ideology, indeed I might feel differently about his approach to healthcare, although I do agree that people’s personal lifestyle choices have a lot to do with their health outcomes, but the way I see it, that’s life and that’s a part of freedom in these United States- you can make those bad choices if you so wish- at least for now.

But apparently, if you are liberal, you had better not express any opinion different from the rest of the pack.

Or they will tear you to pieces- there’s an Axlerod that needs feeding, and it’s not picky about what it eats.

That is what Democrats AND Republicans do to their opponents, but The Resident has raised this to an art form- Demon for a Day- as if the American public has a giant case of ADD, and can conveniently disremember the previous day’s demon. As his big push for Healthcare sinks, he has resorted to several “demons”- first saying it was obstructionist conservatives (it is true we have objections), then it was “manufactured” mobs at town hall meetings. When it was revealed that it was the liberals who were bussed in, wearing nice uniform tee- shirts that loudly proclaimed their union affiliations, he dropped that canard.

Now it is the insurance companies that have become the boogey- man in this debate, and this characterization comes AFTER the Resident had reached an agreement with both the insurance lobby, and big Pharma to come on board. Boy oh boy, if this is how you treat your friends and allies, I’ll pass.

The truth about insurance, the ugly little secret that Barry won’t admit, is that the insurance companies are supposed to make money. I know- shocking isn’t it? In a capitalist society, for a company to make money is just ridiculous. The fact that they do help people while they make money, seems to be lost in the screaming and demonization that the companies must endure.

Central to this anti- insurance feeling seems to be the practice of dropping people after they have gone through a bout with something like Cancer. I understand- I don’t like it- it happened to me, but I understand why they did it.

Cancer surgery and Chemo and radiation therapy is extremely costly, and insurance companies are prohibited from dropping coverage during the treatment phase, which ensures that the full treatment is administered (it would also be bad publicity). But after the patient has been cleared, the insurance company can declare that it has fulfilled its duty to the customer and drop them from the coverage they had. 

This is because, as we all know too well, the cancer can, and often does return after a remission of five to ten years, and the company doesn’t want to take the risk.

In 1997, I had a blockage in my large intestine- it ruptured, causing pain like I have never before experienced, with the same effects as being shot in the gut. I had to have emergency surgery, and, before all was said and done, three more additional surgeries to get myself back to what could be ( if you really stretched the definition) defined as a normal life. All of this in a year and a half, at what would have been a cost of about $125,000 for the total cost.

And the insurance company stayed with me even after all of that. The company was, if I recall right, United Healthcare- and they were good- they had paid for all my in- home costs for antibiotics that I needed for two months straight, with  home delivery. They were great- and then, in 2000, I found a spot on my arm- you know, the same arm that you prop on the windowsill when you are driving down the road.

Ever since I had turned forty, I had been going to a dermatologist to have a yearly checkup. Being a carpenter, working in the broiling Texas sun for thirty- five years, I figured that checkups were a good idea- and the Doc had showed me to self examine, so I did. One day, I found a spot I couldn’t recall had been there, and it set off bells in my head, so I went and had it removed for biopsy.

I had had others removed before and they were nothing, but two days later, the Doctor called me at work at seven in the morning- that’s not a good sign, by the way- and told me that I had an aggressive skin cancer- dermo- plastic malignant melanoma, and He was going to get me into M.D. Anderson hospital right away, because it couldn’t wait.

Long story short, I had it removed, went through all my treatments, and was declared clear, and at that point, the insurance company dropped me- don’t get me wrong- they had several reasons for doing so, as I was on the insurance through my wife’s employer, and in the middle of all of this she had changed jobs, but we were able to keep the insurance through all of this despite all of the job changing and COBRA paperwork.

The insurance company was very nice through all of this, but I understand why they dropped me. Now- would I like to have had another company willing to carry me? Heck yes- I may understand why a company drops someone, but there should be a pool group for higher risk people,and the insurance carriers could pool money and spread the risk around. They might even have a pool of money to cover emergency room costs, to help defray the cost of those who need those services. If the government would match dollar for dollar what the insurance carriers pony up, we might be able to do that, and that would certainly be cheaper than what they are proposing now.

I am not an insurance person- I wouldn’t know an actuarial table if it bit me, but there should be a way to do this without scrapping the system, because if this current system is totally scrapped, then innovations will be much slower to come out on the market. We will, in effect, be treating today’s illnesses with yesterday’s medications, because there will be no innovations.

And it will be the innovations that will eventually incentivize the insurance companies to not drop people because of high risks-because there will be new, innovative medicines to reduce the risks to acceptable ones. And conditions that were uncurable will become curable.

But only if all the companies can make a profit.

Because Healthcare is not a hobby.

I knew this was coming, after discovering the provision in HR 3200 that would mandate government the right to go into your bank account and extract the amount of your gubbmint health scare, but I thought it might need to form a new collection agency- what WAS I thinking? Of course it is a natural fit.

The IRS is already quite possibly the most hated agency in America, why should they create another? They already have most of the pertinent information, and they have a storied tradition of invading peoples’ live in search of the government lucre. And when they do not find it, they know how to put people in prison- just ask Al Capone.

Under both the House and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bills released to the public, the Internal Revenue Service will play a key role in monitoring and enforcing health care mandates against individual taxpayers. Yet the introduction of the IRS into the health care system has received scant attention.

The Senate bill imposes a new requirement that all persons who provide health care coverage to others must file a return with the IRS listing the names, addresses, social security numbers, and the coverage period for each person, and “such other information as the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] may prescribe.” (Section 161(b) starting at page 107). The bill does not limit what information the Secretary may request, so it is conceivable and likely that information as to the nature of the coverage, the family members included, and other details will be reported to the IRS.

The House bill contains similar provisions in section 401(b) (at pp. 175-176). The following information must be reported by the person providing health coverage:

(A) the name, address, and TIN of the primary insured and the name of each other individual obtaining coverage under the policy, (B) the period for which each such individual was provided with the coverage referred to in subsection (a), and (C) such other information as the Secretary may require.

This information is to be provided to the IRS for good reason. The House bill provides for a tax on people who do not have acceptable coverage at “any time” during the tax year. House bill section 401 provides for a new section 59B (at pp. 167-168) of the Internal Revenue Code:

(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

The Senate version is similar, although the tax is called a “shared responsibility payment” not a tax. Section 161 (at pp. 103-104) words new section 59B of the IRC to require lack of coverage for a month (subject to certain exemptions) before the tax kicks in, and does not specify a specific percentage, but instead, directs that annually

the Secretary shall seek to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).
legalinsurrection.blogspot.com

Oh joy- more of our freedoms lost- well, this is ALWAYS to be expected under Democratic rule. Contrary to their “stated” goals and tenets, the Dems LOVE to exert control, and they are trying to exert with all their might, using every tool that they can bring to bear.

Now,the courts will have to determine whether the IRS has the legal right to delve into Healthcare monies, or whether a new agency must be formed. My thinking is that they are not legally empowered by the Constitution to collect these specific monies- but then I am not a judge- I can’t parse the Constitution as some of them can, but my feeling is that unless the Hussein buys off some judges, things will have to go another way.

I hope so, because it might give Congress time to come to their senses and deny the administration the unrestrained powers of this bill. This is a bad bill, and yes- NO bill is always better than a bad one.

This is a case of, “Go back home, and do it again.”

Come on, all you liberals out there, you know you want to do it- you are spineless, and can’t stand the fact that your spineless leader is being questioned at every turn, because every turn is a new foray into socialist collective behavior and group- think.
Your Clown- in Chief wants to “Fundamentally Change America”- his own words, repeated ad nauseum during the campaign, and I have to admit, although those words gave me a chill when I heard them, even I had no idea how much he hated America as it was, nor just how much he wanted to change our country.

Now we can begin to see the outlines of his agenda, and it is anti- American, plain and simple. That is just a fact. There is nothing that he has either done, is doing, or plans to do that is compatible with anything Americans need to have done.

The stimulus was and is a failure- it has brought no jobs, and only stimulated the egos and jobs of those over at Treasury, cash for clunkers did nothing more than help put even more people in debt at a time when we need to be digging ourselves out of debt.

Cap and Trade is a shell game that benefits no consumer, and has some truly scary provisions in it that are punitive. Since “Climate Change” is a far from settled subject, we should not, at this time, be doing as much as this bill decrees, nor the way it goes about it.

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (includingmore UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth’s failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion.

The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a “convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.

The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.”

“More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed CO2′s capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree,” they added.

“The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility,” the scientists wrote.

“Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred,” the scientists wrote.

climatedepot.com

And now we come to the Healthcare, or Obamacare- whatever you choose to call this ill- conceived, socialistic, “soylent green” type of care that makes a mockery of our medical system. You lawmakers will not even read the bills- that is an incredibly irresponsible thing to do, or not do , in this case. Reading the bills is your job. 

If you won’t read the bill, get off of the Hill. You have no business being there, because you are not representing your constituents, if indeed you ever were.

So here’s the deal, all you Liberal Socialist weak- minded people. If you feel like snitching on me, know this- I have already told them at the “Snitch Czar’s” office who I am, and my objections to them , so it would be redundant to turn me in again, but feel free- I will continue to exercise my first amendment rights as long as we continue to have a first amendment (which might not be long, the way this is going).

In the meantime, perhaps I will see you at the town hall meetings, if you libtards have the guts to show up, and not cancel, as so many of your  ”courageous leaders”  have done so far. Being afraid to answer the tough questions is definitely not “Profiles in Courage”.

But then it has been awhile since your side has had anyone with courage.

Lawmakers are on “recess”, (makes you think of carefree children, playing on a playground- probably not far from the truth- the children part, anyway), and hopefully they are getting an earful from people who know that this “Healthcare” package is detrimental to virtually everyone it will affect; and it will affect virtually everyone. The main reason for this is that private insurers cannnot match the price that  the government can impose, thus driving these insurance companies out of business.

People who run small businesses will throw their employees into the “public” option, exacerbating the situation, and when you essentially “dump” 20- 46 million new people into an existing infrastructure, without having the commensurate number of doctors added to the mix, you have a problem that all the smooth language of our brainless leader cannot solve.

Meanwhile, the members of Congress, all but one, have opted to keep their medical insurance, foregoing the public option they keep reassuring us is really good. Listen, you didn’t believe it when you were little, and your mom said strained peas were tasty, especially when she wouldn’t take a bite, so why would you believe this?

Too much, too fast, too expensive. Those are some of the objections lawmakers have voiced against the healthcare overhaul Democrats are attempting on Capitol Hill.

But many Americans think Congress is out of touch. How, they wonder, can lawmakers empathize with the underinsured or those lacking insurance when they receive a benefits package — heavily subsidized by taxpayers — that most of us can only envy?

Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member’s home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan — take it or leave it.

Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington’s federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers.

In all, taxpayers spent about $15 billion last year to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents, including postal service employees, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

latimes.com

There will be unintended consequences- for one thing, all the plans Congress has at its disposal are, for the moment, private plans, and they rely not on Congress to keep them afloat and profitable, but millions of regular people to share the risk. If Congress succeeds in forcing millions of people onto a public plan, there will not be enough people to make Congress’ plans sustainable for their own health- they will in effect, have forced themselves onto the public option, or they will have to subsidize an insurance company.

This could be funny, as they try to undo their own laws, or forge a “special” exemption for federal workers- I mean, Federal workers, from the Resident on down, already enjoy health coverage anyone else would envy.

In all, taxpayers spent about $15 billion last year to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents, including postal service employees, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

Generous plans are available in private industry. But the federal coverage far surpasses that enjoyed by 70 million Americans who are underinsured and at financial risk in the event of a major health crisis — not to mention the estimated 46 million who have no medical insurance.

“For the average worker, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan would probably look quite attractive,” said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, a pinch-penny advocacy group.

Indeed, a question often surfaces: Why can’t everyone enjoy the same benefits as members of Congress? The answer: The country probably couldn’t afford it — not without reforms to bring costs way, way down.

latimes.com

So once again, we see that these hypocrites that want us to sacrifice, and ration our health, will not do the same when it comes to their families. Why should we believe them, when they tell us  that the fire doesn’t burn, when they won’t stick their hand in the flames? The very fact that they are not willing to use the same care package that we the people do, should make anyone with even a remedial brainstem ask why not.

The old saying,  ”What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” is applicable here, and this plan should be summarily rejected out of hand. This plan is truly not about the people, but a blatant power grab to gain more control over the American people and their options. This is all about the government wanting more control over your lives and your choices. You see, they know better than you, because they truly believe they are smarter than you.

Until The Resident, and ALL his minions, czars, lackeys, and suck- ups are willing to go by the same rules that the rest of us have to, this proposed law should die the ugly death it deserves, and ANY member of Congress that votes for this obamanation of a bill should be immediately impeached for high crimes against the American people.

Because anyone who votes for this bill is a traitor, plain and simple.

The “Cash for Clunkers” program, which was allegedly supposed to get inefficient vehicles off of the streets, but instead is a blatant incentive program for the ailing car business ( nothing wrong with that, just call it what it is), has now been suspended by the government, as it has run out of money.

The program, which was to run through October, has instead burned through all of the incentive money the government had allocated to assist the car dealers, as our citizens, addicted to buying things, any things, seized this opportunity to “move on up” to a new car. Don’t you just love that new payment smell?

“Cash for Clunkers” came to a screeching halt Thursday, after only six days on the road. 

In a shocker, the government announced it would suspend the program at midnight because demand was too great. 

It may have been the best $1 billion the government has spent so far this year. 

Business was humming at Crestmont Toyota/Volkswagen Thursday night as salespeople rushed back to work on news that the government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program was being suspended. 

It’s the deal where you get up to $4,500 for your older low mileage beast if you buy a new car with more efficient fuel consumption. 

On Thursday night we learned the program was only good until midnight, all because of a backlog of red tape. So the salespeople were trying to get their deals through the government’s Web site. 

wcbstv.com

Yes, instead of standing pat on cars that possibly were paid for, some people opted to place themselves in even more debt, despite the government’s largesse- which reminds me- I also own a piece of your new gubbmint car, so bring it over. I might need to take it out and race for pinks. A man’s gotta do something for money these days, and I can trade in what I win for money, right? 

No??

Well, at least we know that this is a well run government program, implemented with foresight,and… what?… they did what?…suspended the program- why? They ran out of money? Sheeee………..

“If they can’t administer a program like this, I’d be a little concerned about my health insurance,” car salesman Rob Bojaryn said. 

The “Clunkers” program was being administered by the National Highway Safety Administration, which has seemed overwhelmed from the get-go. Some in Congress are expected to push for expansion of the $1 billion budget on Friday. 

wcbstv.com

Well, so much for the dream that the new government would know what they are doing- now that we know better, we the people need to spend this August recess of Congress peppering our representatives with our views on the abortive Healthcare bills that they are considering.

There should be No government interference in our system, no “public option”, and especially no page 245, where the government comes in to tell you all about your options on ending your life, so as to save money.

There should be no government entity that is required to come to your house and tell you how to parent in the optimum way (according to these government people), or get in your face when you have to make the decisions that affect your family.

After all, if the government can’t even give away cash competently, how can you expect them to do anything more complicated, such as look over your wellness, and that of your family?

Well, Governor Rick Perry has rediscovered (or at least begun to assert) the terms of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, you know, the one that declares that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the Constitution, are the specific powers of either the State government, or the people.
This is in regards to all the various programs Hussein wants to cram down the throats of the states. Hussein wants the states to do this, because acceptance of the money would begin to erode the rights of the states that would take the money.

Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be “disastrous” for Texas.

Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as “Obama Care.” But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a “number” of states might resist the federal health mandate.

“I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying ‘no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare,” Perry said. “So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.”

star-telegram.com

It’s not just about healthcare- that is just the problem du jour with the Hussein administration, which keeps hammering at the door of State’s Rights, hoping to weaken this fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

It is a fact that the various states know better than the Federal Government just what specific concerns the residents of a specific state need- that is so simple and true that it needs no further elaboration, but in their quest to have the federal government supreme in its authority (contrary to the Laws of the Constitution), it has hoped, begged, pleaded, and threatened the various State governments to take the bait, er, money.

Alaska declined. In what would be Sarah Palin’s last official act, she reasserted the soverignity of State’s Rights with regard to Alaska- so far, only two states have signed this statement, Tennessee being the other one. Hope reigns supreme that other states regain their sanity, as well as their pride.

This statement was defeated in the Texas Legislature, by the same Democrats who thought that running off to Oklahoma was a good idea, instead of doing the job their constituents had elected them for. As far as I am concerned, they are traitors- turncoats who refuse to truly represent their electorate.

Nevertheless, Governor Perry knows that there is now a need and a time to draw the line in the sand, and just say no, in the strongest possible terms.

It really is a state issue, and if there was ever an argument for the 10th Amendment and for letting the states find a solution to their problems, this may be at the top of the class,” Perry said. “A government-run healthcare system is financially unstable. It’s not the solution.”

Perry heartily backed an unsuccessful resolution in this year’s legislative session that would have affirmed the belief that Texas has sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

In expressing “unwavering support” for the 10th Amendment resolution by state Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, Perry said “federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens and its interference with the affairs of our state.”

star-telegram.com

In our society, every part of the various governments have their place- county, state, and federal all have a place in this mosaic we call government, but when one part threatens to overwhelm the others, and attempt to assert an overwhelming and illegal control over the others, well, then it is time to tell the federal government to back the hell off. 

That time is now.

Former Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth of Burleson, a senior fellow for healthcare at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, echoed Perry’s assertion that the Obama plan is the wrong approach and could have disastrous financial consequences for Texas.

Under the Senate version of the bill, she said, an expansion of the joint federal-state Medicaid program for the poor could cost Texas $4 billion a year.

“There are good solutions” to the country’s healthcare problems, Wohlgemuth said. “This isn’t it.”

Perry said the plan is another example of the Obama administration’s “massive takeover of the private-sector economy.”

“I hope our leaders will look for solutions that don’t dig our country further into debt,” he said.

Perry called on Texans in the House and Senate to oppose the plan. “I can’t imagine that anyone from Texas who cares about this state would vote for Obama Care. I don’t care whether you’re Democrat or Republican,” he said.

Of those Texans who might consider supporting the plan, he said: “This may sound a little bit harsh, but they might ought to consider representing some other state because they’re sure not representing Texas.”

star-telegram.com

Yes, Texans need to represent Texas, no matter where they are on the political spectrum- now is definitely not the time to cowardly cave into pressure from the Feds, because ceding control to the Federal Government on this and many other initiatives the Hussein Administration has proposed or passed is to give up your liberty, your freedom, and your identity as a member of the state  (in this instance, Texas) that you’re from.

Over the years, we, as a people, have become more homogenized, our regional identities softening, and in some cases disappearing entirely. This is not always a good thing. True, it is in some cases easier to understand someone’s accent from Maine, (or Texas) than it used to be, but the “Identities” of these regions have gone also, and that was always, for me, such a wondrous way of underscoring the fact that we were separate and very different states, held together by a federal government that allowed the states to retain their regional flavor.

That is no longer true, and while the slide towards a vanilla, tasteless, sameness has begun awhile back, this intrusion by the Feds would absolutely kill any individual state’s sovereignty, and that is not good, that’s bad.

Almost as bad as the Healthcare plan itself.