"Obama said that his plan would cost about $900 billion over a decade. He said it could be paid for mostly by eliminating "waste and abuse" from the existing health care system, but he wasn't specific. In addition, he'd charge insurance companies "a fee for their most expensive policies" to fund his plan. Beyond that, he failed to specify how his proposals would slow rising health costs."
The above is from the Yahoo News "analysis" of Obama's speech. I am fullly aware that Yahoo News produces no articles of its own, as is true of AOL an MSN, but all three use ONLY leftist mainstream media sources. I believe that the source of the above is Time Magazine, and the "Buzz" online "service" of Time. Time is as leftist as they come--somewhere to the left of Hugo Chavez, and maybe on par with Fidel Castro I never looked at another Time magazine after a Time Essay ENDORSED the philosophy of the Unabomber (could not make this up)--actually using the Unabomber, of course, to push the Time anti-capitalist view of the world . the essay was an attack on 1950's "anti-feminist" America, AND on the "materialistic substitute represented byt he 1980's. I digress (not really, since a leftist love affair with Big Government and Federal CONTROL is at the core of the debate over health care "reform". I quote the above paragraph because it is the ONLY relevant paragraph in the "analysis". The headline is that Obama signaled a willingness to "compromise" by adopting--not really, other than saying he would accept a "compromise" in the final bill--the approach of such LEFTIST Republicans as Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. It was hardly significant for Obama to speak to a joint session of Congress to send the same message on "compromise" that his Administration has been putting out for two weeks or more.
First, note that there is still NO Obama "plan". Obama failed to endorse any specific bill. The above paragraph is the only significant one in the Time "analysis" because it makes it crystal clear that there really is still NO Obama "plan". Who says a "plan" not represented by any bill will cost "only" 900 billion dollars. The Congressional Budget Office not only projected more costs from the House bill, but said such bill would INCREASE health care costs.
HOW is the question here. If you could waive a magic wand and reduce health care costs, AND health insurance costs, with no downside, most people would waive that wand. I might not, because I believe in freedom, and do not "believe" (put in quotes because I don't regard it as a matter of opinion) in the central planning autocratic approach to "solutions" to problems. In short, I don't believe in turning over our lives to Federal bureaucrats trying to waive magic wands. Now if they really had magic wands, you might think that a little perverse on my part. But we KNOW that they do not have magic wands. They, and the Obama Administration--as is true of all Administrations--are merely people like you and me. Okay, for the most part they are probably not as smart as you or me. But I don't trust even myself, smart as I am, to autocratically decide how to run our entire health care/health insurance system.
You say President Obama did not propose the Federal Government to "run" our health care/health insurance system? Who says? Read the above paragraph again. Then read the Obama health care bill I include (at no additional charge) at the end of this entry. Yes, I sort of lied. There IS an Obama health care "plan". It is just not an open and honest one. The idea is for the Federal Government to at least START controlling health care insurance and health care in this country--giving the power to Federal BUREAUCRATS to impose as much control by regulation as the vague final health care bill will allow. If you remember TARP, where the Secretary of the Treasury did end up with a BLANK CHECK (despite assurances by Obama and the rest of Congress to the contrary), the Federal regulators empowered by the health care "reform" bill (see official bill below) may well ultimately give TOTAL control to the regulators.
You say not? HOW do you expect the Obama "plan" to "control costs" (evidently meaning BOTH health insurance costs and health care costs)? Time Magazine doesn't know. I would not know from listening to Obama. I only know because my sources have discovered the real, two sentence draft oft he official bill--with all of the extra words only CAMOUFLAGE.
Not further that bit about "paying for" health care "reform". "Waste and abuse"? How is Obama proposing to get rid of "waste and abuse" without FEDERAL CONTROL (see my exclusive scoop--the real health care bill set forth below). That is only the tip of the iceberg. Obama has already prosed CUTS in MEDICARE--including CUTS in fees to cardiologists (heart doctors) and oncologists (CANCER doctors) that may well reducer care to the elderly in those critical areas. See the entry a week or so ago in "The Maverick Conservative" (my Google blog). See earlier entries of mine on Newsvine, as well.
This business about "paying for" health care "reform" is Obama in pathological liar mode. He even continues to say that health care "reform" is necessary to "solve" our deficit problems--a "1984" style Big Lie. See my earlier entry on Newsvine using Dave Ramsey to explain why you CAN'T "pay for" health care "reform" this way.
Let me get specific. Medicare and Medicaid are basically the ONLY contributors to the Federal budget involving health care. What can you say about those? Obama is saying they will NOT be "affected" by health care "reform". "Savings" in health care generally might be a good thing (if not dwarfed by bureaucratic expenses, such as for "czars", as will surely happen). However, "savings" in private health care costs, even if they happen, wil NOT "pay for" health care "reform". That can only be done by CUTS in MEDICARE and MEDICAID. Death panels anyone? See again, official text of health care "reform" bill below.
It goes beyond that. Say that there are "waste and abuse" in Medicare and Medicaid. What does that have to do with "paying for" health care "reform". We NEED any such "savings" to PAY FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID (which are bankrupting us). Even if we did not need the "savings" for that purpose, we still need the "savings" to REDUCE THE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PROJECTED DEFICITS.
Do you understand the LIE involved in running trillions of dollars in deficits, and talking about "paying for" any new program? We are spending money we don't have ANYWAY. Obama has said we can't continue to do that and survive. Assume new taxes and "savings" are continually used to "pay for" NEW programs. Doesn't that mean we NEVER reduce our deficit, which President Obama has said means disaster? Of course it means that. That, of course, is all apart from the fact that Obama has simply made up his numbers, and any Federal "overhaul" of health care iss going to cost a LOT more than estimated. That happened with Medicare, and almost every other Federal program--including "cash for clunkers". Why people would think the Federal Government can efficiently CONTROL health care (government "option" or no government "option"), given the way the Federal Government could not even properly estimate the cost, OR efficiently administer, a simple--if stupid--program like "cash for clunkers", is beyond me.
(I have to contact my sources and get the OFFICIAL TEXT of the Obama/Olympia Snow/House/Senate/Pelosi/Reid health care "reform" bill. It will either appear here, or in a separate entry. I am leaning toward putting it into a separate entry, because a scoop like this certainly deserves a headline of its own.). I can summarize even the two sentence official, if secret, bill in ONE sentence: "Federal bureaucrats will have the power to make such regulations as they deem appropriate to reform health care and health insurance in this country."
You think not? Consider illegal immigrants. Obama, in pathological liar mode, said that his "plan" (doesn't exist except ro my exposure of the secret, real plan) does NOT "cover illegal immigrants. How does Obama know? His bill doesn't exist, and the bills that do exist are so complex as to boil down to the "real" plan discovered by the author of this article. And the federal regulations to implement the broad "plan" do not yet exist. How does Obama know what those regulations will say? And then there are the Federal courts (the final refuge of leftist politicians like Obama, who want something but don't want to take the hit for it). If the bill does not PROHIBIT coverage for illegal immigrants, they will surely end up covered. The dirty little secret is that maybe they will be covered even if the bill does prohibit such coverage. The same people--many of them, anyway--who are now saying illegal immigrants are not covered will be FIGHTING FOR such coverage in the courts and regulations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment