OT: Health care update

Mr. Obama never misses a chance to divide people by race, wealth, envy, occupation, age, or any other

measure.

Not at all. More than half the nation is Christian. Should we require the whole nation be Christian?

No, of course not, and we don't have to. We don't have to force people to live in ways abhorrent to their beliefs and natures. We just let everyone do their thing, and it's beautiful. Liberty. America.

That's the great horror of this bill--that the Democrats insist on forcing this on so many people, and secondly, that they believe they can (or should). How intolerant.

You've made it necessary to divide the furniture, or revolt. You've forced it, you leave people no quarter, no refuge, no state to flee to. You've just crammed through today's Intolerable Acts.

There was absolutely no need for that.

If there are a such large number of people who believe in this, and if Congress would only allow it, why wouldn't they simply form their own nation-wide non-evil insurance company, free of waste, fraud and abuse, taking all comers, with no limits? Surely half a nation of believers would be more than large enough a pool to cover any few with preconditions.

And if this worked so wonderfully well, if it were cheaper or better, why wouldn't people pour in by the tens of millions? And why wouldn't competing co-ops or private companies then spring up across the land, trying to do the same thing locally, or better, for even less, or slightly differently?

But instead of building something beautiful of your own, must you tear down what others have and want, and force them to adopt--no, pay for-- yours? That's wrong. And you coopt the government to their door to take it from them, to bludgeon them in broad daylight as surely if you broke their house and took their goods.

That's why people are upset. And this isn't going away. A government that can make you buy medical insurance, can make you buy or do anything at it's whim. That's tyranny.

Best, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat
Loading thread data ...

country."

keep

like-

against

be

Please keep slugging James, even liberals have occasional moments=20 of rationality. Oh bog, do i want to declare open season on Pelosi.

Reply to
JosephKK

hear Mr. Obama's

deliberately

speech,

=A0A

be

dollars.

add up

occasions.

=A0For

student

matter,

best

projects

assumed

simply

to

those

but

to

Obamacare never was about cost control, that was just a BSing point. Puttering around the CBO site trying to read this:

formatting link
ationProposal.pdf

I stumbled into footnote 4 on page 4 of 36

"4 Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to off-budget effects, which = include changes to Social Security or the U.S. Postal Service. Under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go = Act, estimated changes in the on-budget deficit from direct spending and revenues are recorded on =

5-year and 10-year =93scorecards=94 by the Office of Management and Budget, which is = required to order a sequestration (cancellation) of certain direct spending if either scorecard reflects a = net cost in the budget year at the end of a Congressional session."

BFH! On-budget vs. off-budget is both more complicated and important = than i previously understood.

Reply to
JosephKK

=20

=46aulty assumption, Obama did not do the arithmetic nor could he. Nor = did=20 the speech writers, nor could they. Rampant innumeracy is a defining=20 characteristic of politicians, and their cadre of vassals.

Reply to
JosephKK

Yep. Once benefits start, they chew through the first 10 years' money in six years, then it's a rocketsled pointed straight down.

I don't think Ken believes me about the costs. Here's Sen. Max Baucus, author of the Senate plan, on its cost:

=93Just for a second -- health care reform, whether you use a ten-year number or when you start in 2010 or start in 2014, wherever you start at, so it is still either $1 trillion or it's $2.5 Trillion, depending on where you start=85=94 -- (Sen. Baucus, on the Senate floor, 2- Dec-2009)

So the plan's author admits to the "6 is the new 10" gimmick to make the costs look lower than they are. A misrepresentation.

The plan has been repeatedly been sold as costing ~$900B (a bald-faced lie), and being paid for.

Well, setting aside all those tedious facts and figures, anything that burns 10 years' income in 6 years isn't balanced, obviously. Not even close.

"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period." --President Barack Obama, remarks to a joint session of Congress, Sep. 9, 2009.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

Nah, it's a tax hike headed straight up. :-)

I don't think taking 10 years' income to pay for a 6 year project is particularly unusual in any business venture if you're convinced that, during that 6 year project, the market is going to like what they're getting so much they'll be willing to pay for the ongoing cost as well as the initial "missing" 4 years income -- and I certainly think that's what Obama is counting on here.

I mean, if he really is true to his word:

You have nothing to worry about, right? -- One way or another (most likely through large tax increases), the program will be paid for.

Granted, he'll be out of office before some of the biggest requirements for tax increases become obvious...

---Joel

Reply to
Joel Koltner

And I'll likely be dead.

And you young bucks will paying thru the nose so lackies can get a free ride.

Enjoy! ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

No, that's backwards. This plan only makes money in the first 4 years by forcing people to pay, while delivering nothing. Businesses can't do that. Thereafter, as it provides benefits, the plan loses ever more money.

That's the opposite of a business--businesses have to provide something valuable to their customers, and woo them, otherwise people won't buy their stuff. And, businesses that lose more and more money quickly cease.

Uncle Sam-brand insurance just puts you in jail. And, if they need more money, they just jack up their prices.

I've two problems with that. One, he said it was paid for, that it would save money. So that was untrue. Second, it'll likely just get charged to the deficit, hidden.

That's not good. We're real close to the edge, financially. No one knows quite exactly where that edge is, but right now our on-book debt is ~$13T. When we have any kind of a recovery and interest rates return to normal levels, and assuming we keep our AAA-rating, we can expect the federal government to be devoting something like 30% of total revenue to interest on the debt.

So, we'd have to cut federal programs by 1/3rd just to keep even, to make the 'minimum payment' on Barack's VISA card.

That's a calamity--do the numbers.

Bernanke says he absolutely will not monetize the debt (translation: he won't print money), Geithner would sell his own mother (or Bernanke's), and one way or another, the insatiable hope machine will be desperate for some change.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

formatting link

From an investment newsletter:

You may remember our point yesterday that OBAMA!'s new health care plan violates the U.S. Constitution...

We don't recall reading in the Constitution where Congress was given the right to force citizens to buy health insurance. Of course, we've long since realized there is no true check on the government's power. And we're probably just being naïve dreamers by expecting the spirit of the Constitution to mean anything to our current crop of leaders.

But we look forward to reading future Supreme Court decisions about this law. It will at least be entertaining to see how it can twist the plain and obvious meaning of the

10th Amendment, which clearly states powers not expressly given to Congress are strictly reserved for the states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So much for a constitutional, limited government...

Well, today, OBAMA! signed the bill into law and his actions spurred some state officials to dust off their copies of the Constitution and speak up. Thirteen state attorneys general are filing lawsuits to block the health care bill. Four state legislatures have already passed laws blocking the bill. And tomorrow, Virginia's governor will sign a bill into the state's law making it illegal for the federal government to force Americans to purchase health insurance.

We applaud these states' efforts, but it's going to be an uphill battle. Good luck.

Reply to
Robert Baer

...and then the young bucks say screw it and become lackies and the whole thing cork-screws in.

Think of your grandchildren.

Reply to
krw

...and if the lackies want more benefits they jack up the prices. If everything goes perfectly, they jack up the rates. Notice a pattern, everyone?

Until no one buys bonds. Welcome to Weimar World.

30% to welfare, 30% to health care, 30% to education, and another 30% to defense.

Nah, just get another card with a 0% teaser rate.

You believe Bernanke? They'll roll the presses the instant they can't find enough suckers to buy bonds. As I said, Welcome to Weimar World.

Reply to
krw

oney

so much

her

kely

t

No, I don't. I have great respect for him, but it might simply be out of his hands.

But I dunno. I don't understand the details of the Federal Reserve banking system well enough to know his options. I'm reading a book on it. But, meanwhile, I can easily add up the debt, the net money going out, and know it has to come from somewhere, eventually. The interest rate records let you estimate the expected debt service.

Lacking foreign support, there are always 401k plans. A government that can force you to buy their health insurance can force you to buy their bonds, can't it? That's being floated--a national 'retirement plan.'

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

much

Sounds like the only alternative is a mattress.

Reply to
krw

[snip]

Any links or other information on how this is going?

In my opinion, this is far more important than the health care issue. It helps to bring our tax code in line with the healthier world economies (not quite eliminating capital gains taxes, but its better the what we had before). This is what the GOP should be working on. Not throwing a hissy fit over what Obama and the Democrats promised in 2008, got elected, and subsequently delivered.

Extension of the Bush tax relief is going to take some action in Congress. But I'm afraid the GOP is going spend the rest of the year running in circles, screaming about healthcare and not getting important stuff done.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

While Obama and his lackeys kill freedom of speech. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

I'm not following it--this was my source:

formatting link
National debt to be higher than White House forecast, CBO says

"[The President] also wants to make permanent a series of tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year."

I favor taxation to match spending, i.e., a budget that's balanced, long term. That's not practical now, the problem being our spending-- it's simply unbelievable. Entitlements are gobbling 2/3rds of spending, revenues are tanking, and now we've thrown a sequoia on the camel's back to boot.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

Good. The president wants to. But Congress has to act. If they spend the next year whining about healthcare* the cuts will expire. To the delight of some of more tax hungry on the left.

*Why bother whining about it? All of the crap the GOP is proposing to do in the way of legislation either won't make it through a Democratic Congress or won't get signed into law by Obama. So if the State att'y Generals' lawsuit doesn't work, all this screaming and gnashing of teeth is meaningless.
--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

years' money

is

years

can't

people

money

need

=A0If

pattern,

getting so much

initial

Obama is

either

(most likely

it

just get

one

debt

to

will

But when you need a wheel barrow full of mattress money to buy bread=20 the next day that does not work so well. (see 1930s Germany or any=20 other place that has had hyper-inflation) Not even storing precious=20 metal coin will help under those conditions, cause you won't keep=20 it long.

Reply to
JosephKK

Oh please.

Obama was elected by roughly half the voting population.

Is it really that surprising that he'd then attempt to pass legislation that only half the populace strong supports? (And the definition of "support" or "oppose" varies wildly anyway -- you can get numbers anywhere from 30%-80% of the people "supporting" healthcare reform depending on how you word your questions/perform your survey.)

If they can force all able-bodied men to sign up for selective service at the age of 18 and potentially be made to die for their country, being forced to buy something doesn't sound like much of a dare at all. :-)

I think it's in the same place where it promises clean air and water. (I.e., nowhere -- but something not being promised in the constitution doesn't mean the government can't decide to do it anyway. You're much better off taking Jame Arthur's approach, where he makes a fair argument that health care and various other entitlements may very well be specifically *prohibited* in the constitution.)

Better the secretary than my insurance company -- at least the secretary doesn't have a direct profit incenteive?

Oh, I dunno, some people can die with dignity given nothing more than a loaded handgun...

How much does the average healthcare insurance company pay for them? How about individuals purchasing them directly?

Some government contracts do require competitive bids. Writing those contracts in such a manner so as to effectively eliminate any really competition is a time-honored traditional -- and sometimes it's even a reasonable thing to do.

Anyway, that rant comes off as anything but balanced -- lots of fear-mongering, bits and pieces that are likely quite true but only tell part of the story, etc. Those who oppose healthcare reform -- and there are certainly valid reasons to do so -- are unlikely to gain much traction with that sort of writing.

---Joel

Reply to
Joel Koltner

New book: "Liars in Washington" - - or is that an oxymoronic statement?

Re Obamacare:

President Obama signed into law his health care "reform" plan yesterday, just two days after Democrats in the House of Representatives ramrodded the bill through the legislative chamber.

It seems bizarre that Obama and his hatchet woman in Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are proud of something nearly half of the people in the U.S. oppose. Of course, most of us with any common sense can't see how spending $1 trillion reduces health care costs. Most of us with hard-earned wealth understand how government simply wastes and taxes us more to pay for these drummed up fantasies.

But once more, the paternalistic thieves in Washington are trying to blind us with math that doesn't work.

Worse... for the first time I can recall in our country's history, we are being forced to buy goods and services whether we want them or not. How dare the government compel you and me to buy anything!

These laws go against the fabric of freedom this country was founded upon. They are bred from a culture of corruption and lies.

If you (or your employer) decides you don't want health care insurance, the government can levy a penalty of $2,250- $3,000 per year. In addition (and I haven't seen this in the press but it's buried in the bill), the IRS can penalize you 2% of household income for not buying insurance. (And don't worry, the IRS will get to hire 16,000 new agents to ensure compliance.)

You should be outraged the government will now tax the daylights out of us working folks, too. All to provide free health care. Bah. It's absurd. Where does our Constitution promise free health care, housing, or food?

The government can't balance its own books, let alone manage any of the organizations within it. For example, former Rep. Charles Rangel of New York introduced one of the first versions of the bill. You may have heard, Rangel recently resigned his seat because of ethics violations and tax cheating ? failing to report $500,000 of assets and declare $75,000 in rental income.

The person overseeing the new health care regime is no better. Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of Health and Human Services, couldn't do her taxes properly as governor of Kansas ? she had to pay back-taxes and penalties in the thousands.

We're letting the politicians erode our rights and freedoms and acting like whipped dogs as they take more of our money. Now, Sebelius will decide how and on what you spend your money. Did you know the secretary now has the power to decide what imaging study tests you'll get? And her appointees will determine whether the care you're getting in your dying days is appropriate... So much for death with dignity. She even oversees the health care of nonresident aliens as they get treated on your dime. Yep, full health care benefits for all.

(Don't believe it? They changed the wording in the bill from "legal resident" to "lawfully residing.")

If you need more examples of how wasteful this new bill will be, look no farther than what Medicare pays for power-driven wheelchairs. A report from the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General shows Medicare pays four times what suppliers pay for them. And that's because there's no competitive bidding process required. I'm not making this stuff up. How much trouble would it have been years ago for Congress to pass a bill requiring bids for all government contracts ?

Reply to
Robert Baer

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.