Monday, October 12, 2009
New Location of My Articles
http://skip33666.newsvine.com/ This is the link to where my new articles now appear. I was doing duplicate postings for awhile on this blog, but stopped. Why? Well, I got 99 comments to a recent article I poted on newsvine.com. I have never got more than FOUR on this Google blog, and I really had no reason to believe ANYONE was paynig any attention. That caused me to get even more sloppy than usual--not even spell check, which is HARD for me, with bad eyesight). If I am going to put in the effort, I wnat SOMEONE to actually read the stuff. So few readers of this Google blog, I have not even felt the limited time to do duplicate postes was worth it. May resume duplicates, just to have a backup archive, but you can best find new articles on newvine.com (delspite its apparent association with MSNBC). If link does not work, as mine have a habit of not working, you can get to my newsvine.com cite by first going to newsvine.com You will--hopefully--wee the "search" blank in the upper right hand corner of the screen. Type in "skip33666" (note extra "6"). CHANGE "full text" on the right of what you just tlyped to "useers". Then click GO. You will then get an almost blank screen. But at the very bottom of that screen, you should see a refeernce to "skip33666". Click on that user name. You should be there. Good luck. I think some of the articles are pretty good. You will stil find a lot of prrofreading errors, because my eyesight has not improved. But I AM using spell check, and most people seem able to follow the articles. There is also a section att he bottom for my comments on other articles. The full articles and comments are not posted, as on this blog, but you have to click again to read the full article. I actaully find the site--amazinng for MSNBC--much easier to use than either AOL or Google. Once you get a password (easy, with just a user name), you seem to be logged in FOREVER (at least so far). There are no funny puzzles (so far) for security verification. If I think it is easy, it must be easy . Becuase I am virtuallly helpless with this stuff.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
CNN, Hopeless Hypocrites: The Liar Network Has a Really Bad Week
CNN had a really bad week. Yes, I know. CNN has a bad week EVERY week, but last week (especially Friday) was really bad--even for CNN. Considering that CNN is officially known as "The Liar Network", and has--in the past--made a point (especially Soledad O'Brien) out of endorsing the RACISM of Reverend Wright, this is saying quite a lot. No wonder CNN has no viewers. Nope. I am NOt a viewer. I simply got this entry's information by hearing clips, and seeing/hearing read the complete letter from the author of Big Government.com. On to the specifics.
On Friday, CNN got so involved in its own agenda that it reported a Coast Guard TRAINING EXERCISE as a MAJOR incident creating major danger to President Obama. CNN reported an incursion into a restricted area, and quoted Coast Guard transmissions as if the incident were real. It, of course, was not real Again, it was a TRAINING EXERCISE.
Do reporters ever check facts anymore? Obviously not CNN!!!!! Merely checking with the Coast Guard before going with this "story" would have saved CNN major shame and embarrassment--except they have no shame.
Now you may say: "Well, maybe Fox rep roted the initial reports, and should CNN not have reported that some sort of incident appeared to have taken place"? This idea that you should "report" stories without finding out the facts is one of the things that is wrong with modern "journalism", including--on occasion--Fox. But I seriously doubt Fox went as far as CNN.
What did CNN do? I am glad you asked. They were already SPECULATING as to the amount of danger Obama was in, and whether he had "safely" been evacuated from the area. They were already wringing their hands over the plight of our President faced with all of those dangerous people out to kill him, egged on by all of this "vitriol". I don't know what CNN said when they found out that all of this tragic hand wringing, and agonizing over our valiant President in danger, turned out to be a Coast Guard HOAX. Oh, I know that the Coast Guard said that they saw no reason not to run a training exercise on 9/11, but maybe the President himself, and the Secret Service, were misled by that evil Coast Guard. The poor guy has so many right wing enemies out there!!! Enough. CNN simply looked ridiculous.
Then there was the open letter from the primary author behind BigGovernmenbt.com. Unless you have been watching CNN, or the rest of the mainstream media, you probably heard about the undercover "sting" that this guy pulled on ACORN.
He posed as a pimp, and brought in a woman posing as a prostitute/madam, and went to an ACORN office in Baltimore asking for HELP in bringing in underage (like 13) GIRLS from El Salvador to work in a brothel in the United States (in other words, as virtual sex slaves). The resulting VIDEO shows the ACORN people trying to HELP this pimp, and prostitute, bring in illegal, underage girls to work as prostitutes. ACORN even suggested how to SAVE TAXES by claiming the girls as DEPENDENTS. Look up the video yourself. It is amazing.
CNN did not play the "raw" video, but instead went into Reverend Wright defense mode by suggesting that laws may have been broken in getting this video, and that it was a "setup" where the actions of a few "crazies" (maybe even somehow put up to it) were being used to try to discredit ACORN, and ultimately Obama. Problem: Th enext day BigGovernment.com issued a SECOND video showing that the Washington, D.C. office of ACORN had DONE THE SAME THING. ACORN, meanwhile, did not deny the facts, although we all know that all of these criminals in ACORN do not really represent the organization We know that because ACORN has said so every time its members are accused of outrageous crimes--those "incidents' now so numerous that they can't even be counted.
Now CNN may have been justified in believing that ACORN's attitude toward illegal immigration (all for it) is basically the same as Obama's attitude. Obama has shown no inclination to really stop illegal immigration. amd his Administration has done little or nothing to meet the crisis here on the Mexican border. See my articles on "Mexico, a Failed Country" both on Newsvine and in my Google blog, "The Maverick Conservative". Besides, there wee IMPORTANT stories to be "outraged" about, such as that state senator caught on tape bragging about his sex exploits with women not his wife. Did I mention that the people at CNN, and in the rest of the mainstream media, are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth? Well, they are.
Doubt me? Wait for it. Even though CNN did not play his raw video--only tried to discredit it---CNN wanted to get the BigGovernment.com guy on their network. Well, this guy (who I am beginning to really like--I leave discovering his name as an exercise for you) obviously is aware that CNN is officially The Liar Network. He wrote and open letter to the hypocrites at CNN.
The letter noted how CNN had immediately tried to defend ACORN, and discredit his video--WITHOUT SHOWING THE RAW VIDEO. He noted that CNN's "higher rated competitor" (FOX) had shown the video He went on to say that he did not feel like subjecting himself to a HIT SQUAD/piece on CNN unless they at least had the decency to show his video so people knew exactly what was being talked about
Again, now wonder CNN has no viewers. You not only get bias, but you don't even get the facts necessary to evaluate the bias. What CNN says is bad. What they fail to report is almost criminal.
Yes, go back to MEXICO. See my entries on Mexico. Taking their cue from President Obama, CNN has reported almost nothing about the DRUG WAR going on along the Mexican border (mainly in Mexico, but spreading to the U.S.). More than 3,000 people have dies in Juarez, Mexico in less than two years. That is the sister city to El Paso, across the Rio Grande. If Obama mentions the "problem", CNN---and the rest of the mainstream media-MIGHT do an incomplete and misleading report on just how bad things now are in Mexico, especially along the border. Otherwise, the whole thing is ignored. Ye, more people are now dying in Juarez than in BAGHDAD.
CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, truly are hopeless. They are HYPOCRITES on a scale beyond belief. Luckily, people are learning, and the mainstream media has an audience on its way to declining to zero. CNN has taken the lead, as its audience already has declined to zero.
You doubt me on CNN, and the mainstream media, being hypocrites of the worst kind? Don't. Consider how an organization like ACORN would be reported if it were a CONSERVATIVE organization supporting Republicans. Evem a single bad act would be deemed to reflect badly on the whole group, the whole party, and every cause in which the group had an interest. Look at poor Joe Wilson, who merely told the truth, but in the wrong place and time. The mainstream media (the despicable AP did a story directly to this effect" even tried to suggest that Joe Wilson had "sealed the deal" on health care for Obama. Talk about "guilt by association"!!! H::HYPOCRTITES.
It reallly was a bad week for CNN, but hter are no good weeks.
On Friday, CNN got so involved in its own agenda that it reported a Coast Guard TRAINING EXERCISE as a MAJOR incident creating major danger to President Obama. CNN reported an incursion into a restricted area, and quoted Coast Guard transmissions as if the incident were real. It, of course, was not real Again, it was a TRAINING EXERCISE.
Do reporters ever check facts anymore? Obviously not CNN!!!!! Merely checking with the Coast Guard before going with this "story" would have saved CNN major shame and embarrassment--except they have no shame.
Now you may say: "Well, maybe Fox rep roted the initial reports, and should CNN not have reported that some sort of incident appeared to have taken place"? This idea that you should "report" stories without finding out the facts is one of the things that is wrong with modern "journalism", including--on occasion--Fox. But I seriously doubt Fox went as far as CNN.
What did CNN do? I am glad you asked. They were already SPECULATING as to the amount of danger Obama was in, and whether he had "safely" been evacuated from the area. They were already wringing their hands over the plight of our President faced with all of those dangerous people out to kill him, egged on by all of this "vitriol". I don't know what CNN said when they found out that all of this tragic hand wringing, and agonizing over our valiant President in danger, turned out to be a Coast Guard HOAX. Oh, I know that the Coast Guard said that they saw no reason not to run a training exercise on 9/11, but maybe the President himself, and the Secret Service, were misled by that evil Coast Guard. The poor guy has so many right wing enemies out there!!! Enough. CNN simply looked ridiculous.
Then there was the open letter from the primary author behind BigGovernmenbt.com. Unless you have been watching CNN, or the rest of the mainstream media, you probably heard about the undercover "sting" that this guy pulled on ACORN.
He posed as a pimp, and brought in a woman posing as a prostitute/madam, and went to an ACORN office in Baltimore asking for HELP in bringing in underage (like 13) GIRLS from El Salvador to work in a brothel in the United States (in other words, as virtual sex slaves). The resulting VIDEO shows the ACORN people trying to HELP this pimp, and prostitute, bring in illegal, underage girls to work as prostitutes. ACORN even suggested how to SAVE TAXES by claiming the girls as DEPENDENTS. Look up the video yourself. It is amazing.
CNN did not play the "raw" video, but instead went into Reverend Wright defense mode by suggesting that laws may have been broken in getting this video, and that it was a "setup" where the actions of a few "crazies" (maybe even somehow put up to it) were being used to try to discredit ACORN, and ultimately Obama. Problem: Th enext day BigGovernment.com issued a SECOND video showing that the Washington, D.C. office of ACORN had DONE THE SAME THING. ACORN, meanwhile, did not deny the facts, although we all know that all of these criminals in ACORN do not really represent the organization We know that because ACORN has said so every time its members are accused of outrageous crimes--those "incidents' now so numerous that they can't even be counted.
Now CNN may have been justified in believing that ACORN's attitude toward illegal immigration (all for it) is basically the same as Obama's attitude. Obama has shown no inclination to really stop illegal immigration. amd his Administration has done little or nothing to meet the crisis here on the Mexican border. See my articles on "Mexico, a Failed Country" both on Newsvine and in my Google blog, "The Maverick Conservative". Besides, there wee IMPORTANT stories to be "outraged" about, such as that state senator caught on tape bragging about his sex exploits with women not his wife. Did I mention that the people at CNN, and in the rest of the mainstream media, are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth? Well, they are.
Doubt me? Wait for it. Even though CNN did not play his raw video--only tried to discredit it---CNN wanted to get the BigGovernment.com guy on their network. Well, this guy (who I am beginning to really like--I leave discovering his name as an exercise for you) obviously is aware that CNN is officially The Liar Network. He wrote and open letter to the hypocrites at CNN.
The letter noted how CNN had immediately tried to defend ACORN, and discredit his video--WITHOUT SHOWING THE RAW VIDEO. He noted that CNN's "higher rated competitor" (FOX) had shown the video He went on to say that he did not feel like subjecting himself to a HIT SQUAD/piece on CNN unless they at least had the decency to show his video so people knew exactly what was being talked about
Again, now wonder CNN has no viewers. You not only get bias, but you don't even get the facts necessary to evaluate the bias. What CNN says is bad. What they fail to report is almost criminal.
Yes, go back to MEXICO. See my entries on Mexico. Taking their cue from President Obama, CNN has reported almost nothing about the DRUG WAR going on along the Mexican border (mainly in Mexico, but spreading to the U.S.). More than 3,000 people have dies in Juarez, Mexico in less than two years. That is the sister city to El Paso, across the Rio Grande. If Obama mentions the "problem", CNN---and the rest of the mainstream media-MIGHT do an incomplete and misleading report on just how bad things now are in Mexico, especially along the border. Otherwise, the whole thing is ignored. Ye, more people are now dying in Juarez than in BAGHDAD.
CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, truly are hopeless. They are HYPOCRITES on a scale beyond belief. Luckily, people are learning, and the mainstream media has an audience on its way to declining to zero. CNN has taken the lead, as its audience already has declined to zero.
You doubt me on CNN, and the mainstream media, being hypocrites of the worst kind? Don't. Consider how an organization like ACORN would be reported if it were a CONSERVATIVE organization supporting Republicans. Evem a single bad act would be deemed to reflect badly on the whole group, the whole party, and every cause in which the group had an interest. Look at poor Joe Wilson, who merely told the truth, but in the wrong place and time. The mainstream media (the despicable AP did a story directly to this effect" even tried to suggest that Joe Wilson had "sealed the deal" on health care for Obama. Talk about "guilt by association"!!! H::HYPOCRTITES.
It reallly was a bad week for CNN, but hter are no good weeks.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Obama vs. Obama; 47 Million Uninsured vs. 30 Million: Are There More Than 15 Legitimately Uninsured People In This Country?
You may not have noticed, and the mainstream media may not have told you, but President Obama REDUCED the number of uninsured (health insurance) in this country from 47 million to "more than 30 million".
This is yet another case of Obama vs. Obama, with an interesting subtext. I have previously discussed that President Obama, as a candidate, ELOQUENTLY and PASSIONATELY distinguished his health care "plan" from that of Hillary Clinton by saying that he would never FORCE anyone to buy health insurance. He has since decided Hillary was right (or was only posturing--lying--in the first place). Obama now includes in his "plan" a requirement that everyone purchase health insurance, or be "fined" up to $3800.00. See AP story referenced in a previous article. Obama has also taken on Obaam on the subject of the deficit, where Obama (and Geitner) said that we could not sustain deficits like this without dooming any recovery (correct). Then the Obama Administration changed their accumulated deficit over the next 10 years to 9 TRILLION from about 7 trillion. Right. They acted like this was not important, even though Obama himself had previously said it spelled DOOM to sustain deficits like that. Now Obama is talking about "paying for" health care as if 9 TRILLION in accumulated deficits is unimportant, since he is accepting the continuation of those deficits when he says that he will make sure (lol) his health care "plan" is "deficit neutral" (that is, does not ADD to the deficit, but that means acceping the present deficits as okay while any "savings" or new taxes are applied to NEW programs, leaving the projected 9 trillion dollar deficits untouched).
This new "Obama vs. Obama" moment is probably explained by he criticism over coverage of illegal immigrants. This seems to indicate that Obama--when he talked about the 47 million uninsured previously--was INCLUDING illegal immigrants (without any qualms). However, after criticism, and even though Democrats in the House voted down an amendment to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage, Obama now uses that 30 million uninsured figure. That seems to indicate that Obama believes that there are 17 million illegal immigrants in this country who could probably use health insurance.
Now you may think that Obama has abandoned the idea of covering illegal immigrants, even though he seemingly had no problem with that previously. Uh-huh. And I have this inventory of bridges in Brooklyn from which I can sell you a bridge.
See my previous articles on this subject over the past two days. Many of the very people who are now accusing OPPONENTS of health care "reform" of lying, are the very people who will ADVOCATE the position that health care "reform" has to include illegal immigrants--AFTER THE BILL IS PASSED. Further, many of these people are the very same people who will go to Federal Court to say that the Federally courts must FORCE illegal immigrants to be included in any health care "reform".
Thus, to me, this reduction of the uninsured is just another layer of deception, when Obama fully intends that the final "decision" on inclusion of illegal immigrants be made by Federal bureaucrats and/or the Federal courts.
Obviously, that 47 million included MILLIONS of illegal immigrants. That did not stop the mainstream media, and Democratic candidates, from using that figure IN THE ELECTION. Hypocrisy and dishonesty, anyone? Many of those people don't want to be insured, even if they could afford it by giving up some things--see the previous article today on Sylvia. Many could be covered by Medicaid. Many are only temporarily uninsured. Many have made the rational decision to be self-insured.
There may be 15 people in the country who really want to be insured, to the point of giving up--say--cell phones or cable TV. For those 15 people President Obama wants to have the Federal government mess up health care. Okay. I a exaggerating. But not that much. I haven't even mentioned the CHILD insurance available under CHIP for "little or nothing" (quoting Texas commercials being run the past several weeks/months). There really is no reason for very many people to be uninsured, except as a matter of choice.
Yes, some people may have a problem with pre-existing conditions. A simple amendment to HIPA (Health Insurance Portability Act) could address that without some grand, stupid "overhaul". Notice that including pre-existing conditions will INCREASE the health insurance for everyone except those with expensive pre-existing conditions. I actually favor addressing this problem, but on a STATE level (where mistakes can be more easily corrected, and people can see the exact cost).
See how all of the above really follows from Obama's implied attack on Obama for misleading us about the true number of uninsured? Interesting, isn't it?
This is yet another case of Obama vs. Obama, with an interesting subtext. I have previously discussed that President Obama, as a candidate, ELOQUENTLY and PASSIONATELY distinguished his health care "plan" from that of Hillary Clinton by saying that he would never FORCE anyone to buy health insurance. He has since decided Hillary was right (or was only posturing--lying--in the first place). Obama now includes in his "plan" a requirement that everyone purchase health insurance, or be "fined" up to $3800.00. See AP story referenced in a previous article. Obama has also taken on Obaam on the subject of the deficit, where Obama (and Geitner) said that we could not sustain deficits like this without dooming any recovery (correct). Then the Obama Administration changed their accumulated deficit over the next 10 years to 9 TRILLION from about 7 trillion. Right. They acted like this was not important, even though Obama himself had previously said it spelled DOOM to sustain deficits like that. Now Obama is talking about "paying for" health care as if 9 TRILLION in accumulated deficits is unimportant, since he is accepting the continuation of those deficits when he says that he will make sure (lol) his health care "plan" is "deficit neutral" (that is, does not ADD to the deficit, but that means acceping the present deficits as okay while any "savings" or new taxes are applied to NEW programs, leaving the projected 9 trillion dollar deficits untouched).
This new "Obama vs. Obama" moment is probably explained by he criticism over coverage of illegal immigrants. This seems to indicate that Obama--when he talked about the 47 million uninsured previously--was INCLUDING illegal immigrants (without any qualms). However, after criticism, and even though Democrats in the House voted down an amendment to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage, Obama now uses that 30 million uninsured figure. That seems to indicate that Obama believes that there are 17 million illegal immigrants in this country who could probably use health insurance.
Now you may think that Obama has abandoned the idea of covering illegal immigrants, even though he seemingly had no problem with that previously. Uh-huh. And I have this inventory of bridges in Brooklyn from which I can sell you a bridge.
See my previous articles on this subject over the past two days. Many of the very people who are now accusing OPPONENTS of health care "reform" of lying, are the very people who will ADVOCATE the position that health care "reform" has to include illegal immigrants--AFTER THE BILL IS PASSED. Further, many of these people are the very same people who will go to Federal Court to say that the Federally courts must FORCE illegal immigrants to be included in any health care "reform".
Thus, to me, this reduction of the uninsured is just another layer of deception, when Obama fully intends that the final "decision" on inclusion of illegal immigrants be made by Federal bureaucrats and/or the Federal courts.
Obviously, that 47 million included MILLIONS of illegal immigrants. That did not stop the mainstream media, and Democratic candidates, from using that figure IN THE ELECTION. Hypocrisy and dishonesty, anyone? Many of those people don't want to be insured, even if they could afford it by giving up some things--see the previous article today on Sylvia. Many could be covered by Medicaid. Many are only temporarily uninsured. Many have made the rational decision to be self-insured.
There may be 15 people in the country who really want to be insured, to the point of giving up--say--cell phones or cable TV. For those 15 people President Obama wants to have the Federal government mess up health care. Okay. I a exaggerating. But not that much. I haven't even mentioned the CHILD insurance available under CHIP for "little or nothing" (quoting Texas commercials being run the past several weeks/months). There really is no reason for very many people to be uninsured, except as a matter of choice.
Yes, some people may have a problem with pre-existing conditions. A simple amendment to HIPA (Health Insurance Portability Act) could address that without some grand, stupid "overhaul". Notice that including pre-existing conditions will INCREASE the health insurance for everyone except those with expensive pre-existing conditions. I actually favor addressing this problem, but on a STATE level (where mistakes can be more easily corrected, and people can see the exact cost).
See how all of the above really follows from Obama's implied attack on Obama for misleading us about the true number of uninsured? Interesting, isn't it?
Mexico, a Failed Country: Kidnapping and Murder in El Paso/Juarez
Yes, this is yet another dispatch from the front lines of the drug cartel war happening right across the Rio Grande from El Paso, in Juarez, Mexico--basically 5 miles from where I am writing this. For two years, I have been chronicling the deteriorating situation in Mexico under the general heading of "Mexico, a Failed Country."
The situation has taken yet another turn for the worse here. As I have told you, Juarez, Mexico has become perhaps the most dangerous city in the world. THOUSANDS (more than 3 thousand) people have been murdered in the past 2 years in Juarez, and the pace is accelerating. That is apart from the ongoing series of hundreds of unsolved murders of young women.
The news in El Paso today was about a disturbing new kind of development. As I have told you (see archives of my Google blog, "The Maverick Conservative", and Newsvine.com article), it has been somewhat amazing that the drug war in Juarez has generally NOT spread across the Rio Grande to El Paso. As I told you, that could not last, and today's story indicates it is changing.
A 30 year old man was kidnapped (routine now in Mexico) in Horizon City, TEXAS, and found dead in Juarez, Mexico. That is really disturbing. Horizon City is part of El Paso County, and part of the metropolitan area of El Paso. One of my brothers, and a sister-in-law, live there. For all practical purposes, this kidnapping occurred in El Paso, and obviously represents a a real warning that the Juarez violence might be about to spread to El Paso in a much more major way than has been the case.
Meanwhile, President Obama and the mainstream media are pretty much ignoring the really disturbing situation along the Mexican border. We long ago lost control of illegal immigration, as the "elite" establishment in this country has refused to do anything about it. That includes the Republican establishment--John McCain, President Bush and the rest. But President Obama has taken ignoring the Mexican border to a new level.
President Obama is treating as a "crisis" a proposed health care "plan" that will not even be substantially implemented until 2013. That will merely increase the problems from a true "crisis": the DEFICIT and accumulating debt. Rather than address the real "crises" brewing, Obama has gone off on this crusade about health care that is absurd. The situation along the Mexican border is a crisis i the making. Obama, like Nero, fiddles (figuratively). He is more interested in denying that his health care "plan" will cover illegal immigrants, despite the House defeat of a specific provision to exclude illegal immigrants, than he is in addressing the developing real crisis on the Mexican border.
The situation has taken yet another turn for the worse here. As I have told you, Juarez, Mexico has become perhaps the most dangerous city in the world. THOUSANDS (more than 3 thousand) people have been murdered in the past 2 years in Juarez, and the pace is accelerating. That is apart from the ongoing series of hundreds of unsolved murders of young women.
The news in El Paso today was about a disturbing new kind of development. As I have told you (see archives of my Google blog, "The Maverick Conservative", and Newsvine.com article), it has been somewhat amazing that the drug war in Juarez has generally NOT spread across the Rio Grande to El Paso. As I told you, that could not last, and today's story indicates it is changing.
A 30 year old man was kidnapped (routine now in Mexico) in Horizon City, TEXAS, and found dead in Juarez, Mexico. That is really disturbing. Horizon City is part of El Paso County, and part of the metropolitan area of El Paso. One of my brothers, and a sister-in-law, live there. For all practical purposes, this kidnapping occurred in El Paso, and obviously represents a a real warning that the Juarez violence might be about to spread to El Paso in a much more major way than has been the case.
Meanwhile, President Obama and the mainstream media are pretty much ignoring the really disturbing situation along the Mexican border. We long ago lost control of illegal immigration, as the "elite" establishment in this country has refused to do anything about it. That includes the Republican establishment--John McCain, President Bush and the rest. But President Obama has taken ignoring the Mexican border to a new level.
President Obama is treating as a "crisis" a proposed health care "plan" that will not even be substantially implemented until 2013. That will merely increase the problems from a true "crisis": the DEFICIT and accumulating debt. Rather than address the real "crises" brewing, Obama has gone off on this crusade about health care that is absurd. The situation along the Mexican border is a crisis i the making. Obama, like Nero, fiddles (figuratively). He is more interested in denying that his health care "plan" will cover illegal immigrants, despite the House defeat of a specific provision to exclude illegal immigrants, than he is in addressing the developing real crisis on the Mexican border.
Health Care Myth, Obama, and Sylvia: "I Have More Important Things Upon Which to Spend Money Than Health Insurance"
Sylvia is basically my only (platonic, as if any woman, including my ex-wife, would be otherwise for long). She is a Mexican-American female who is a veteran of being unemployed at various times, which has not stopped her trips to Greece, Turkey, Hong Kong, Thailand, Vietnam, Italy, and other places. She has a virtual second home in Portland, and lived in the Northwest for many years (including Seattle). I mention all of this to show you that Sylvia is a pretty savvy, sophisticated person. Twenty years or so ago she was my legal assistant. She then got an IT degree, and recently went to work for Automatic Data Processing in El Paso (to which city she returned a few lyears ago because her son and granddaughter live here. Sylvia assures me that the main "discrimination" she suffers is from being TOO BEAUTIFUL, rather than from being Mexican-American. Of course, as with my ex-wife and two daughters, you would not really know Sylvia is Mexican-American (outside of El Paso), since she has an "anglo" last name, and "Latinas" are really WHITE (Caucasian)--looking no different than many other European women, In the case of my daughters, they look like California (non-Hispanic) girls.
Well, I asked Sylvia a month or so ago whether she had taken advantage of that subsidy given to unemployed persons that covers about 75% of the cost. She had been laid off in about October of last year, and had not gotten her new job (with health care--although a company like ADP might be glad to have the government take over, if such an "option" is available).
This was Sylvia's response to me (on whether she had taken advantage of the heavily subsidized health insurance while she was unemployed, which would have cost her very little because she has no real serious health problems and is in her forties): "Hey. I have more important things to spend my money on. I was unemployed. Even a hundred dollars a month is too much. I have a house to take care of. I can't eat up my savings with health insurance. I have more important priorities."
Sylvia had actually bought a house, with no money down, right before she was laid off. So much for the panic that there was "no credit". However, while she was unemployed, she had no problem finding money to fix up her new house. She found money for trips to Portland, and other places. She was getting unemployment. The point is that if health insurance were IMPORTANT to her (as distinguished, say, from fixing up her new house or taking trips), she could easily have paid the subsidized amount.
I have no problem with Sylvia's decision to put other things ahead of subsidized health insurance. It might not have been my choice, but that is what freedom is all about. Sylvia was making a rational choice as to what was important to her, on the assumption (correct, as it turned out) that she could find a job with health insurance before she really needed substantial medical career.
The bone I have to pick is with President Obama, who would not recognize freedom (despite his campaign rhetoric that he would never force Americans to have health insurance) if Thomas Jefferson's ghost explained it to him. See my earlier article, entitled "Obama vs. Obama....."
Notice that Sylvia did not panic when she became unemployed. She rationally decided what her priorities are. Contrast that with President Obama, who tried to scare people today, as he tried to do in his speech last night. Today, Obama cited new statistics saying that more people (like Sylvia?) are without health insurance.
What does that mean? It means that more people are UNEMPLOYED (see next planned article). They have decided, despite the subsidy available to them, that they have higher priorities than health insurance. Maybe they are right. But what is the real "solution" to this problem? Hint: It is NOT to RIN the economy with government intervention in health care. It is to get the EC ONOMY back on track. We have managed to pull out of every other recession without massive government control of substantial parts of the economy. In fact, Reagan pulled out of a recession about as bad with TAX CUTS. Once people return to jobs, they have health care again--unless the government has ruined it in the meantime, or enabled employers like Wal-Mart to push the responsibility for health insurance on to the taxpayers.
President Obama does not know what he is talking about. The fat that people like Sylvia "lose" health insurance during unemployment is NOT an argument for government control of the health care industry. It is really the opposite--an arguent AGAINST using such passing (hopefully) economic event as an excuse to ruin our health care system. Instead of getting the whole country distracted with a health care "plan", and debate, that we can'T afford, Obama should have been concentrating on the economy.
While Obama is fiddling (with health care, cap and trade, and other things), Rome is burning. The continuing deficit, which health care will make WORSE, is destroying any possibility of an economic recovery. Any increase nt he number of people without health insurance means that government subsidies have not prevented it. MORE government programs will merely increase the cost, without improving the health insurance situation (not really that bad, by the way), if the economy does not do better.
In short, Obama's policies, including this attempt at government control of health care, have done nothing but make economic recovery a very doubtful thing. The deficit alone, AS OBAMA HAS SAID, will make economic recovery impossible. Nor are we "paying for" health care reform(see yesterday's analysis of Obama's speech by me, and my previous article looking at this fromt he point of view of Dave Ramsey). It is NOT "paying for" health care "reform" to use "savings"(CUTS) in Medicare and Medicaid to finance a new program, when such "savings" could be used to save Medicare and Medicaid, and REDUCE the deficit. Ditto on new revenue, which is needed to cut the deficit rather than finance a NEW program with money we don't have.
As I said, President Obama does not know what he is talking about. Sylvia, uninsured as she was, is considerably more intelligent.
Well, I asked Sylvia a month or so ago whether she had taken advantage of that subsidy given to unemployed persons that covers about 75% of the cost. She had been laid off in about October of last year, and had not gotten her new job (with health care--although a company like ADP might be glad to have the government take over, if such an "option" is available).
This was Sylvia's response to me (on whether she had taken advantage of the heavily subsidized health insurance while she was unemployed, which would have cost her very little because she has no real serious health problems and is in her forties): "Hey. I have more important things to spend my money on. I was unemployed. Even a hundred dollars a month is too much. I have a house to take care of. I can't eat up my savings with health insurance. I have more important priorities."
Sylvia had actually bought a house, with no money down, right before she was laid off. So much for the panic that there was "no credit". However, while she was unemployed, she had no problem finding money to fix up her new house. She found money for trips to Portland, and other places. She was getting unemployment. The point is that if health insurance were IMPORTANT to her (as distinguished, say, from fixing up her new house or taking trips), she could easily have paid the subsidized amount.
I have no problem with Sylvia's decision to put other things ahead of subsidized health insurance. It might not have been my choice, but that is what freedom is all about. Sylvia was making a rational choice as to what was important to her, on the assumption (correct, as it turned out) that she could find a job with health insurance before she really needed substantial medical career.
The bone I have to pick is with President Obama, who would not recognize freedom (despite his campaign rhetoric that he would never force Americans to have health insurance) if Thomas Jefferson's ghost explained it to him. See my earlier article, entitled "Obama vs. Obama....."
Notice that Sylvia did not panic when she became unemployed. She rationally decided what her priorities are. Contrast that with President Obama, who tried to scare people today, as he tried to do in his speech last night. Today, Obama cited new statistics saying that more people (like Sylvia?) are without health insurance.
What does that mean? It means that more people are UNEMPLOYED (see next planned article). They have decided, despite the subsidy available to them, that they have higher priorities than health insurance. Maybe they are right. But what is the real "solution" to this problem? Hint: It is NOT to RIN the economy with government intervention in health care. It is to get the EC ONOMY back on track. We have managed to pull out of every other recession without massive government control of substantial parts of the economy. In fact, Reagan pulled out of a recession about as bad with TAX CUTS. Once people return to jobs, they have health care again--unless the government has ruined it in the meantime, or enabled employers like Wal-Mart to push the responsibility for health insurance on to the taxpayers.
President Obama does not know what he is talking about. The fat that people like Sylvia "lose" health insurance during unemployment is NOT an argument for government control of the health care industry. It is really the opposite--an arguent AGAINST using such passing (hopefully) economic event as an excuse to ruin our health care system. Instead of getting the whole country distracted with a health care "plan", and debate, that we can'T afford, Obama should have been concentrating on the economy.
While Obama is fiddling (with health care, cap and trade, and other things), Rome is burning. The continuing deficit, which health care will make WORSE, is destroying any possibility of an economic recovery. Any increase nt he number of people without health insurance means that government subsidies have not prevented it. MORE government programs will merely increase the cost, without improving the health insurance situation (not really that bad, by the way), if the economy does not do better.
In short, Obama's policies, including this attempt at government control of health care, have done nothing but make economic recovery a very doubtful thing. The deficit alone, AS OBAMA HAS SAID, will make economic recovery impossible. Nor are we "paying for" health care reform(see yesterday's analysis of Obama's speech by me, and my previous article looking at this fromt he point of view of Dave Ramsey). It is NOT "paying for" health care "reform" to use "savings"(CUTS) in Medicare and Medicaid to finance a new program, when such "savings" could be used to save Medicare and Medicaid, and REDUCE the deficit. Ditto on new revenue, which is needed to cut the deficit rather than finance a NEW program with money we don't have.
As I said, President Obama does not know what he is talking about. Sylvia, uninsured as she was, is considerably more intelligent.
Obama Health Care Plan: Elxclusive Text--Blank Check?
Here is the exclusive text of the secret Obama health care plan, obtained by this author by violating national security in a manner of which the mainstream media would be proud:
"The relevant Federal agencies shall have the power to make such regulations as they reasonably deem appropriate to provide what should be in all new health insurance policies issued in this country, and such regulations as shall be required to contain health care costs in this country. The relevant federal agencies--including any new ones created, and any quasi-government entities created--shall have a blank check to spend whatever money is deemed appropriate to subsidize co-ops, and any other quasi-government or other entities, to such degree necessary to insure all Americans--with the power to require all Americans to enroll in such subsidized insurance."
See the previous article for a partial explanation. This is the simple text which is the basis for ALL of the several thousand page versions of the bill. If you think the above quoted sentences are convoluted, you should try to read the deceptive, vague stuff in the proposed actual bills--pages designed to conceal the real agenda here. Of course, the arrogant people writing the House bill are so stupid that they failed to realize the idea was to CONCEAL the actual agenda. That is why you got all of that stupid. leftist language in addition to the deliberately confusing gobbledygook.
You think I am kidding? Well, I am "kidding" (I think) about the existence of the actual, written text above. Yet, I am not kidding about that being the hones text of what Obama intends. He just has that intention in his head, instead of down on paper.
You doubt me? Remember the TARP bill--the original Paulson/Democrat/Bush 700 billion dollar bill to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase toxic assets? Remember how Congress p[ut all of those restrictions on how, and at what price such toxi assets would be purchased? Remember how Congress spent more than TWO WEEKS on this farce of a debate, when no toxic assets were purchased? Instead, we directly "invested" taxpayer money in banks, GM, and who knows what other companies. That was not debated AT ALL in connection with the bill. Here is the text of the actual bill, that was used to craft the deceptive, published bill:
"
The Secretary of the Treasury shall have a blank check to spend 700 billion dollars in such ways as he deems appropriate to meet the present financial 'crisis'"
How can you disagree with me on what the actual bill was? You can't. I assure you that they are going to try to pass a health care bill of a similar type, intending to ultimately give complete power to Federal regulators to transform our health care and health insurance industries in the manner that the regulators (and their political bosses) desire.
"The relevant Federal agencies shall have the power to make such regulations as they reasonably deem appropriate to provide what should be in all new health insurance policies issued in this country, and such regulations as shall be required to contain health care costs in this country. The relevant federal agencies--including any new ones created, and any quasi-government entities created--shall have a blank check to spend whatever money is deemed appropriate to subsidize co-ops, and any other quasi-government or other entities, to such degree necessary to insure all Americans--with the power to require all Americans to enroll in such subsidized insurance."
See the previous article for a partial explanation. This is the simple text which is the basis for ALL of the several thousand page versions of the bill. If you think the above quoted sentences are convoluted, you should try to read the deceptive, vague stuff in the proposed actual bills--pages designed to conceal the real agenda here. Of course, the arrogant people writing the House bill are so stupid that they failed to realize the idea was to CONCEAL the actual agenda. That is why you got all of that stupid. leftist language in addition to the deliberately confusing gobbledygook.
You think I am kidding? Well, I am "kidding" (I think) about the existence of the actual, written text above. Yet, I am not kidding about that being the hones text of what Obama intends. He just has that intention in his head, instead of down on paper.
You doubt me? Remember the TARP bill--the original Paulson/Democrat/Bush 700 billion dollar bill to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase toxic assets? Remember how Congress p[ut all of those restrictions on how, and at what price such toxi assets would be purchased? Remember how Congress spent more than TWO WEEKS on this farce of a debate, when no toxic assets were purchased? Instead, we directly "invested" taxpayer money in banks, GM, and who knows what other companies. That was not debated AT ALL in connection with the bill. Here is the text of the actual bill, that was used to craft the deceptive, published bill:
"
The Secretary of the Treasury shall have a blank check to spend 700 billion dollars in such ways as he deems appropriate to meet the present financial 'crisis'"
How can you disagree with me on what the actual bill was? You can't. I assure you that they are going to try to pass a health care bill of a similar type, intending to ultimately give complete power to Federal regulators to transform our health care and health insurance industries in the manner that the regulators (and their political bosses) desire.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Obama and Health Care: Obama FAILS To Justify Health Care "Plan" Or Speech (Overhyped Speech Saying Nothing)
"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.
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:
Posts (Atom)