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.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
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.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Health Care and Obama vs. Obama: Should You Have Voted For Hillary?
"WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as President Barack Obama met Democratic leaders to search for ways to salvage his health care overhaul."
The headline is exactly accurate. This is a case of President Obama vs. President Obama. It is also a case of President Obama admitting that Democrats should have voted to nominate Hilary Clinton (at least if health care were their primary focus, and/or less hypocrisy and clearer thinking in proposing a coherent "plan" for heath care overhaul.
What was the main difference cited by Barack Obama, during the Presidential campaign, between his position on health care and that of Hillary Clinton? It was that Obama would not FORCE Americans to have health care insurance--would not take avway their "free choice" with government coercion. Obama did so with typical Obama "eloquence", which failed to explain why Hillary Clinton was not right that the Obama "plan" necessarily meant millions of people would ot be insured. The question is: Did Obama ever mean it, or was he just saying what he thought he needed to say to get the Democratic nomination?
Assume Obama meant it (my personal opinion being that he, himself had no idea whether he "meant" it or not, since he always says what sounds good at the time, without any intention of being "bound" today by what he said yesterday). Well, after he became President he said that his position had "evolved" on this matter, and that he now realized you had to require people to have health care insurance to make any health care overhaul "work". Was Obama himself not telling you you should have voted for Hillary Clinton, as I did in the Texas primary (promising to vote for her in the general election, as well). Obama, as President, told you that he did NOT "think through" his position as candidate. While not directly saying so, he was admitting that Hillary Clinton had thought through her position.
No, in that last paragraph I am not even referring to today's AP story above. I am referring to a story more than two months ago, which I cited in my Google blog, "The Maverick Conservative", at the time. I said the same thing then as I am say;ing now: that as far as I am concerned Obama was admitting that Democrats should have nominated Hillary Clinton. The story then was NOT about a "proposal" circulating in Congress. It wa about an interview with President Obama, where he was asked that specific questioner. His answer was what I have indicated: that he has considered the input of "experts" (like Hillary Clinton?), and has "rethought" his position such that he has concluded that it is necessary to REQUIRE ever American to have health insurance.
Notice I am not saying that Hillary Clinton's plan was GOOD. I am just saying that it was always at least honest and consistent, while Obama has never had a coherent "plan" at all--to this very date.
Why did I support Hillary Clinton for President? You will have to consult the archives of "The Maverick Conservative" for that answer in full. I explained it in detail at the time. It comes down to the fact that I thought John McCain was going to be just as bad for the country as Hillary Clinton, but that Hillary Clinton would be much better for conservatives. Or at least there was hope for that, as was true with regard to her husband, Bill. I still regret not voting for Bill Clinton over George Bush 41. There is simply no question that Bill Clinton was the best President for conservatives, including creating a Republican House for the first time in generations, than any President since Ronald Reagan.
I did not, however, vote for--or support--Obama against John McCain. Let me be clear here. I would have supported Mitt Romney against Hillary Clinton (or Obama), as I supported Romney for the Republican nomination. But I could not support McCain. I supported Bob Barr (throwing away vote). I had hopes that the country could do well launder Hillary Clinton, as we did under Bill Clinton (overall, because the Republican House kept him from doing anything but conservative things, in terms of most legislation). I knew Obama would be an absolute disaster for the country, and that we might not survive him. I still could not stomach voting for McCain, because I thought--correctly, I believe--that the destruction would be just as certain launder McCain, except slower and more drawn out. That is because McCain would have been a Republican (and labeled a "conservative", which he is ot) presiding over the same type of expansion of government as Obama, except a little slower and without a coherent Republican Party in opposition. In fact, there is probably MORE chance for a bad health care overhaul with McCain than with Obama, because McCain would have "caved in" with a bad "compromise" (as he may yet do now), and Republicans would not have untied against McCain.
In short, I dislike the policies that Hilary Clinton advocates. But I thought she was pragmatic enough, and experienced enough, to avoid destroying the country pursuing her admittedly leftist policies. We will never know whether I was right on Hillary Clinton. We do know, I think, that there was no right choice between McCain and Obama (although you can certainly argue that McCain could not possibly have been this bad), and that Obama is in the process of destroying the country. You can look at "The Maverick Conservative" for the multiple examples of Obama vs. Obama, as we have a President with no regard whatever for the "truth". For him, the "truth" is his rhetoric today, as distinguished from his rhetoric yesterday.
The headline is exactly accurate. This is a case of President Obama vs. President Obama. It is also a case of President Obama admitting that Democrats should have voted to nominate Hilary Clinton (at least if health care were their primary focus, and/or less hypocrisy and clearer thinking in proposing a coherent "plan" for heath care overhaul.
What was the main difference cited by Barack Obama, during the Presidential campaign, between his position on health care and that of Hillary Clinton? It was that Obama would not FORCE Americans to have health care insurance--would not take avway their "free choice" with government coercion. Obama did so with typical Obama "eloquence", which failed to explain why Hillary Clinton was not right that the Obama "plan" necessarily meant millions of people would ot be insured. The question is: Did Obama ever mean it, or was he just saying what he thought he needed to say to get the Democratic nomination?
Assume Obama meant it (my personal opinion being that he, himself had no idea whether he "meant" it or not, since he always says what sounds good at the time, without any intention of being "bound" today by what he said yesterday). Well, after he became President he said that his position had "evolved" on this matter, and that he now realized you had to require people to have health care insurance to make any health care overhaul "work". Was Obama himself not telling you you should have voted for Hillary Clinton, as I did in the Texas primary (promising to vote for her in the general election, as well). Obama, as President, told you that he did NOT "think through" his position as candidate. While not directly saying so, he was admitting that Hillary Clinton had thought through her position.
No, in that last paragraph I am not even referring to today's AP story above. I am referring to a story more than two months ago, which I cited in my Google blog, "The Maverick Conservative", at the time. I said the same thing then as I am say;ing now: that as far as I am concerned Obama was admitting that Democrats should have nominated Hillary Clinton. The story then was NOT about a "proposal" circulating in Congress. It wa about an interview with President Obama, where he was asked that specific questioner. His answer was what I have indicated: that he has considered the input of "experts" (like Hillary Clinton?), and has "rethought" his position such that he has concluded that it is necessary to REQUIRE ever American to have health insurance.
Notice I am not saying that Hillary Clinton's plan was GOOD. I am just saying that it was always at least honest and consistent, while Obama has never had a coherent "plan" at all--to this very date.
Why did I support Hillary Clinton for President? You will have to consult the archives of "The Maverick Conservative" for that answer in full. I explained it in detail at the time. It comes down to the fact that I thought John McCain was going to be just as bad for the country as Hillary Clinton, but that Hillary Clinton would be much better for conservatives. Or at least there was hope for that, as was true with regard to her husband, Bill. I still regret not voting for Bill Clinton over George Bush 41. There is simply no question that Bill Clinton was the best President for conservatives, including creating a Republican House for the first time in generations, than any President since Ronald Reagan.
I did not, however, vote for--or support--Obama against John McCain. Let me be clear here. I would have supported Mitt Romney against Hillary Clinton (or Obama), as I supported Romney for the Republican nomination. But I could not support McCain. I supported Bob Barr (throwing away vote). I had hopes that the country could do well launder Hillary Clinton, as we did under Bill Clinton (overall, because the Republican House kept him from doing anything but conservative things, in terms of most legislation). I knew Obama would be an absolute disaster for the country, and that we might not survive him. I still could not stomach voting for McCain, because I thought--correctly, I believe--that the destruction would be just as certain launder McCain, except slower and more drawn out. That is because McCain would have been a Republican (and labeled a "conservative", which he is ot) presiding over the same type of expansion of government as Obama, except a little slower and without a coherent Republican Party in opposition. In fact, there is probably MORE chance for a bad health care overhaul with McCain than with Obama, because McCain would have "caved in" with a bad "compromise" (as he may yet do now), and Republicans would not have untied against McCain.
In short, I dislike the policies that Hilary Clinton advocates. But I thought she was pragmatic enough, and experienced enough, to avoid destroying the country pursuing her admittedly leftist policies. We will never know whether I was right on Hillary Clinton. We do know, I think, that there was no right choice between McCain and Obama (although you can certainly argue that McCain could not possibly have been this bad), and that Obama is in the process of destroying the country. You can look at "The Maverick Conservative" for the multiple examples of Obama vs. Obama, as we have a President with no regard whatever for the "truth". For him, the "truth" is his rhetoric today, as distinguished from his rhetoric yesterday.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Health Care: Are Health Care Overhaul Proponents Immoral? Are They Thieves?
I have seen people on the internet who should know better credit proponents of "universal", or "federal government" or "central planning" health care with "noble", if impractical, goals based on a strong "moral" sense". Hogwash. Balderdash's. "1984" style Big Lie.
Walter Williams (conservative black economist--I think he is an economist; look him up on Wikipedia) likes to use this analogy. Say you are a person out on the street who sees a SICK homeless person living on a grate. You figure the person needs at least a thousand dollars for food, shelter and health care. You disregard the fact that giving such a person a thousand dollars may KILL the person (used on alcohol, drugs etc.), because you are a leftist moved by guilt and sentiment rather than thinking. Leftists--"moral" people that they are--routinely kill people in the name of "helping" them. You decide to give this person 1000 dollars.
What is the "noble" thing for you to do? Right. Give the person one thousand dollars out of your OWN money. That is the "noble", self-sacrificing, "moral" thing to do, if you believe that is the way to help this person. Or you could offer to take the person to a doctor/hospital, and directly pay the bill--along with taking the person home for dinner, and providing a room. That would avoid the problem of what the person would do with money. Even more to the point, you could join with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, George Soros and other like minded individuals to set up a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION to efficiently deliver health care, food, housing, and other necessities to the poor. Some of the "rich" people I have just mentioned (notably Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) have done something like that.
If you do any of the things I mention in the previous paragraph, I am willing to call you a "noble", "moral" person. Otherwise, you are simply a hypocritical leftist. Walter Williams likes to describe what you do if you are an immoral, hypocritical leftist.
What you do is that you get a gun. Then you go out and find some prosperous looking individual and ROB him (armed robbery) of $1000.00. Then you to to the poor, homeless person and give him the thousand dollars, thereby feeling good about yourself.
Is this "moral" conduct on your part? Not in this universe. Yet, that is exactly what the Federal Government does when it takes money from the "rich" and gives that money to the "poor" (for health care or anything else).
Now I understand that this is oversimplification--more on Walter Williams' part than on mine, since I don't delude myself that this argument is conclusive. It does, however, dispose of the idea, conclusively, that people who want to take OTHER PEOPLE'S money by force, and give it to third persons, are not automatically "moral".
I am willing to go further. I am willing to say that Walter Williams is right to at least a degree, and that the MOST "moral" system is one of VOLUNTARY charity. And make no doubt about it. It is charity. One of the many faults of leftists is that they lie--including refusing to call tings by their real names. Still, there is nothing wrong with helping people voluntarily. It is, indeed, a "noble" thing to do. Hospitals do it (when they are not trying to get the taxpayer to assume the burden in a fascist deal with Barack Obama). Doctors do it (ditto). Drug companies do it (ditto). Private individuals do it. Local comm unites do it (when they are not trying to engage in the FICTION of "free money" from the Federal Government). States do it (ditto). Yes, local communities and states are "government", but they are government closest to the people who are FORCED to "apy as you go" and realize exactly where money is going. Is there any objective doubt that VOLUNTARY efforts to help those who cannot afford to help themselves, including with health insurance, represent the more "noble" system. This objectively true--not even a matter of opinion. Walter Williams is right about that, and it is not even an arguable point.
"But", you sputter, "that is "IMPRACTICAL". "It can't work.". Who says? I am going to show you that it is CENTRAL PLANNING that "can't work" in future entries. It is a massive, bloated Federal Government that "can't work". But note how the argument has been reversed. Leftists are not really "noble". They want to take money from OTHER PEOPLE to give to third parties, and their only excuse for this theft is that the alternatives "can't work". That is hardly "noble" or "moral'.
Yep. Leftists are doing what they do best: being HYPOCRITES and intellectually dishonest. Th his is not a matter of "good intentions". I accept the idea that many liberals have "good intentions", but so do conservatives. Liberals may think conservatives are "hard hearted", but conservatives (ore justly) consider liberals immoral because they do HARM to the people they purport to have "heart" for int he name of "compassion". That is not real compassion. That is real "hard heartedness": where you think more of relieving your own guilt, and "feeling good", than you do of actually promoting policies that will end up benefiting the people for whom you supposedly feel "compassion".
Bottom line: Leftists/liberals deserve NO credit for the "goodness of their heart", and their "noble" aims--to the extent they really have them and are not interested mainly in personal power. The issue on health care, AND EVERYTHING ELSE, is what policy BEST accomplishes public policy goals, IN THE LONG RUN. "Noble" has nothing to do with it. "Noble" is defined totally by RESULTS. "Moral" has nothing to do with it, other than the fact that principles matter. For example, this country was founded on FREEDOM. Does an all powerful Federal Government fit at all with that concept?
Ultimately, that is the point. Central planning (by an all powerful Federal bureaucracy) does not work. Just as importantly, or more importantly, it CANNOT WORK. Experience shows you that the Federal Government cannot run things. From the post office to the military commissaries, to the Senate cafeteria/food service, the Federal Government has proved a failure. That is no accident. Central planning cannot work.
I will explain further in a future entry (or entries). But take food stamps. Has the government set up "public option" grocery stores, or "co-ops", to COMPETE with private supermarkets? You say that is ridiculous? Sure it is, but no more ridiculous than the government running health insurance/care in this country. It is the same thing. The government does this sort of thing BADLY--disastrously, in fact. There is nothing to stop the government from setting up government "supermarkets" selling food cheaper than Wal-Mart (good luck, except that the government can set any pice it wants, because it can print money.
You sy that health insurance is not as competitive as supermarkets? well, then why are you not advocating ending mergers between health care companies and otherwise promoting real competition ("real" competition and the "government option" being an oxymoron when lumped together). The idea that the government "knows" the proper price for health insurance, or anything else, is absurd. If the idea of the government deterring both what doctors/health care providers are paid, AND what coverage can be offered in health insurance policies at what price does not scare you, then you have no understanding of how the Federal Government operates (even given good faith, which does not always exist). The elderly are beginning to fully appreciate the danger here--if only our "establishment" would start listening. Yes, I think the public in general better understands the problem--the IMMORALITY--of coercive central planning than our "elites" (including Republican "elites) do.
However, the fundamental point of this entry is that "morality" is basically a side issue, and that it is absurd to credit only liberals with "compassion". "Compassion", in terms of FEELING, has NOTHING to do with it. This is a matter of the BEST policy, and if you argue "compassion" as a way of avoiding that issue you are being IMMORAL (not to mention hypocritical and intellectually dishonest). I would mention that I would prefer not to talk about these issues in terms of "morality", or who is more "noble". But since that appears often to be the sole leftist argument--their fallback position when all of their other arguments predictably fail--I have no choice but to address these concepts
Walter Williams (conservative black economist--I think he is an economist; look him up on Wikipedia) likes to use this analogy. Say you are a person out on the street who sees a SICK homeless person living on a grate. You figure the person needs at least a thousand dollars for food, shelter and health care. You disregard the fact that giving such a person a thousand dollars may KILL the person (used on alcohol, drugs etc.), because you are a leftist moved by guilt and sentiment rather than thinking. Leftists--"moral" people that they are--routinely kill people in the name of "helping" them. You decide to give this person 1000 dollars.
What is the "noble" thing for you to do? Right. Give the person one thousand dollars out of your OWN money. That is the "noble", self-sacrificing, "moral" thing to do, if you believe that is the way to help this person. Or you could offer to take the person to a doctor/hospital, and directly pay the bill--along with taking the person home for dinner, and providing a room. That would avoid the problem of what the person would do with money. Even more to the point, you could join with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, George Soros and other like minded individuals to set up a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION to efficiently deliver health care, food, housing, and other necessities to the poor. Some of the "rich" people I have just mentioned (notably Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) have done something like that.
If you do any of the things I mention in the previous paragraph, I am willing to call you a "noble", "moral" person. Otherwise, you are simply a hypocritical leftist. Walter Williams likes to describe what you do if you are an immoral, hypocritical leftist.
What you do is that you get a gun. Then you go out and find some prosperous looking individual and ROB him (armed robbery) of $1000.00. Then you to to the poor, homeless person and give him the thousand dollars, thereby feeling good about yourself.
Is this "moral" conduct on your part? Not in this universe. Yet, that is exactly what the Federal Government does when it takes money from the "rich" and gives that money to the "poor" (for health care or anything else).
Now I understand that this is oversimplification--more on Walter Williams' part than on mine, since I don't delude myself that this argument is conclusive. It does, however, dispose of the idea, conclusively, that people who want to take OTHER PEOPLE'S money by force, and give it to third persons, are not automatically "moral".
I am willing to go further. I am willing to say that Walter Williams is right to at least a degree, and that the MOST "moral" system is one of VOLUNTARY charity. And make no doubt about it. It is charity. One of the many faults of leftists is that they lie--including refusing to call tings by their real names. Still, there is nothing wrong with helping people voluntarily. It is, indeed, a "noble" thing to do. Hospitals do it (when they are not trying to get the taxpayer to assume the burden in a fascist deal with Barack Obama). Doctors do it (ditto). Drug companies do it (ditto). Private individuals do it. Local comm unites do it (when they are not trying to engage in the FICTION of "free money" from the Federal Government). States do it (ditto). Yes, local communities and states are "government", but they are government closest to the people who are FORCED to "apy as you go" and realize exactly where money is going. Is there any objective doubt that VOLUNTARY efforts to help those who cannot afford to help themselves, including with health insurance, represent the more "noble" system. This objectively true--not even a matter of opinion. Walter Williams is right about that, and it is not even an arguable point.
"But", you sputter, "that is "IMPRACTICAL". "It can't work.". Who says? I am going to show you that it is CENTRAL PLANNING that "can't work" in future entries. It is a massive, bloated Federal Government that "can't work". But note how the argument has been reversed. Leftists are not really "noble". They want to take money from OTHER PEOPLE to give to third parties, and their only excuse for this theft is that the alternatives "can't work". That is hardly "noble" or "moral'.
Yep. Leftists are doing what they do best: being HYPOCRITES and intellectually dishonest. Th his is not a matter of "good intentions". I accept the idea that many liberals have "good intentions", but so do conservatives. Liberals may think conservatives are "hard hearted", but conservatives (ore justly) consider liberals immoral because they do HARM to the people they purport to have "heart" for int he name of "compassion". That is not real compassion. That is real "hard heartedness": where you think more of relieving your own guilt, and "feeling good", than you do of actually promoting policies that will end up benefiting the people for whom you supposedly feel "compassion".
Bottom line: Leftists/liberals deserve NO credit for the "goodness of their heart", and their "noble" aims--to the extent they really have them and are not interested mainly in personal power. The issue on health care, AND EVERYTHING ELSE, is what policy BEST accomplishes public policy goals, IN THE LONG RUN. "Noble" has nothing to do with it. "Noble" is defined totally by RESULTS. "Moral" has nothing to do with it, other than the fact that principles matter. For example, this country was founded on FREEDOM. Does an all powerful Federal Government fit at all with that concept?
Ultimately, that is the point. Central planning (by an all powerful Federal bureaucracy) does not work. Just as importantly, or more importantly, it CANNOT WORK. Experience shows you that the Federal Government cannot run things. From the post office to the military commissaries, to the Senate cafeteria/food service, the Federal Government has proved a failure. That is no accident. Central planning cannot work.
I will explain further in a future entry (or entries). But take food stamps. Has the government set up "public option" grocery stores, or "co-ops", to COMPETE with private supermarkets? You say that is ridiculous? Sure it is, but no more ridiculous than the government running health insurance/care in this country. It is the same thing. The government does this sort of thing BADLY--disastrously, in fact. There is nothing to stop the government from setting up government "supermarkets" selling food cheaper than Wal-Mart (good luck, except that the government can set any pice it wants, because it can print money.
You sy that health insurance is not as competitive as supermarkets? well, then why are you not advocating ending mergers between health care companies and otherwise promoting real competition ("real" competition and the "government option" being an oxymoron when lumped together). The idea that the government "knows" the proper price for health insurance, or anything else, is absurd. If the idea of the government deterring both what doctors/health care providers are paid, AND what coverage can be offered in health insurance policies at what price does not scare you, then you have no understanding of how the Federal Government operates (even given good faith, which does not always exist). The elderly are beginning to fully appreciate the danger here--if only our "establishment" would start listening. Yes, I think the public in general better understands the problem--the IMMORALITY--of coercive central planning than our "elites" (including Republican "elites) do.
However, the fundamental point of this entry is that "morality" is basically a side issue, and that it is absurd to credit only liberals with "compassion". "Compassion", in terms of FEELING, has NOTHING to do with it. This is a matter of the BEST policy, and if you argue "compassion" as a way of avoiding that issue you are being IMMORAL (not to mention hypocritical and intellectually dishonest). I would mention that I would prefer not to talk about these issues in terms of "morality", or who is more "noble". But since that appears often to be the sole leftist argument--their fallback position when all of their other arguments predictably fail--I have no choice but to address these concepts
I have seen people on the internet who should know better credit proponents of "universal", or "federal government" or "central planning" health care with "noble", if impractical, goals based on a strong "moral" sense". Hogwash. Balderdash's. "1984" style Big Lie.
Walter Williams (conservative black economist--I think he is an economist; look him up on Wikipedia) likes to use this analogy. Say you are a person out on the street who sees a SICK homeless person living on a grate. You figure the person needs at least a thousand dollars for food, shelter and health care. You disregard the fact that giving such a person a thousand dollars may KILL the person (used on alcohol, drugs etc.), because you are a leftist moved by guilt and sentiment rather than thinking. Leftists--"moral" people that they are--routinely kill people in the name of "helping" them. You decide to give this person 1000 dollars.
What is the "noble" thing for you to do? Right. Give the person one thousand dollars out of your OWN money. That is the "noble", self-sacrificing, "moral" thing to do, if you believe that is the way to help this person. Or you could offer to take the person to a doctor/hospital, and directly pay the bill--along with taking the person home for dinner, and providing a room. That would avoid the problem of what the person would do with money. Even more to the point, you could join with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, George Soros and other like minded individuals to set up a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION to efficiently deliver health care, food, housing, and other necessities to the poor. Some of the "rich" people I have just mentioned (notably Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) have done something like that.
If you do any of the things I mention in the previous paragraph, I am willing to call you a "noble", "moral" person. Otherwise, you are simply a hypocritical leftist. Walter Williams likes to describe what you do if you are an immoral, hypocritical leftist.
What you do is that you get a gun. Then you go out and find some prosperous looking individual and ROB him (armed robbery) of $1000.00. Then you to to the poor, homeless person and give him the thousand dollars, thereby feeling good about yourself.
Is this "moral" conduct on your part? Not in this universe. Yet, that is exactly what the Federal Government does when it takes money from the "rich" and gives that money to the "poor" (for health care or anything else).
Now I understand that this is oversimplification--more on Walter Williams' part than on mine, since I don't delude myself that this argument is conclusive. It does, however, dispose of the idea, conclusively, that people who want to take OTHER PEOPLE'S money by force, and give it to third persons, are not automatically "moral".
I am willing to go further. I am willing to say that Walter Williams is right to at least a degree, and that the MOST "moral" system is one of VOLUNTARY charity. And make no doubt about it. It is charity. One of the many faults of leftists is that they lie--including refusing to call tings by their real names. Still, there is nothing wrong with helping people voluntarily. It is, indeed, a "noble" thing to do. Hospitals do it (when they are not trying to get the taxpayer to assume the burden in a fascist deal with Barack Obama). Doctors do it (ditto). Drug companies do it (ditto). Private individuals do it. Local comm unites do it (when they are not trying to engage in the FICTION of "free money" from the Federal Government). States do it (ditto). Yes, local communities and states are "government", but they are government closest to the people who are FORCED to "apy as you go" and realize exactly where money is going. Is there any objective doubt that VOLUNTARY efforts to help those who cannot afford to help themselves, including with health insurance, represent the more "noble" system. This objectively true--not even a matter of opinion. Walter Williams is right about that, and it is not even an arguable point.
"But", you sputter, "that is "IMPRACTICAL". "It can't work.". Who says? I am going to show you that it is CENTRAL PLANNING that "can't work" in future entries. It is a massive, bloated Federal Government that "can't work". But note how the argument has been reversed. Leftists are not really "noble". They want to take money from OTHER PEOPLE to give to third parties, and their only excuse for this theft is that the alternatives "can't work". That is hardly "noble" or "moral'.
Yep. Leftists are doing what they do best: being HYPOCRITES and intellectually dishonest. Th his is not a matter of "good intentions". I accept the idea that many liberals have "good intentions", but so do conservatives. Liberals may think conservatives are "hard hearted", but conservatives (ore justly) consider liberals immoral because they do HARM to the people they purport to have "heart" for int he name of "compassion". That is not real compassion. That is real "hard heartedness": where you think more of relieving your own guilt, and "feeling good", than you do of actually promoting policies that will end up benefiting the people for whom you supposedly feel "compassion".
Bottom line: Leftists/liberals deserve NO credit for the "goodness of their heart", and their "noble" aims--to the extent they really have them and are not interested mainly in personal power. The issue on health care, AND EVERYTHING ELSE, is what policy BEST accomplishes public policy goals, IN THE LONG RUN. "Noble" has nothing to do with it. "Noble" is defined totally by RESULTS. "Moral" has nothing to do with it, other than the fact that principles matter. For example, this country was founded on FREEDOM. Does an all powerful Federal Government fit at all with that concept?
Ultimately, that is the point. Central planning (by an all powerful Federal bureaucracy) does not work. Just as importantly, or more importantly, it CANNOT WORK. Experience shows you that the Federal Government cannot run things. From the post office to the military commissaries, to the Senate cafeteria/food service, the Federal Government has proved a failure. That is no accident. Central planning cannot work.
I will explain further in a future entry (or entries). But take food stamps. Has the government set up "public option" grocery stores, or "co-ops", to COMPETE with private supermarkets? You say that is ridiculous? Sure it is, but no more ridiculous than the government running health insurance/care in this country. It is the same thing. The government does this sort of thing BADLY--disastrously, in fact. There is nothing to stop the government from setting up government "supermarkets" selling food cheaper than Wal-Mart (good luck, except that the government can set any pice it wants, because it can print money.
You sy that health insurance is not as competitive as supermarkets? well, then why are you not advocating ending mergers between health care companies and otherwise promoting real competition ("real" competition and the "government option" being an oxymoron when lumped together). The idea that the government "knows" the proper price for health insurance, or anything else, is absurd. If the idea of the government deterring both what doctors/health care providers are paid, AND what coverage can be offered in health insurance policies at what price does not scare you, then you have no understanding of how the Federal Government operates (even given good faith, which does not always exist). The elderly are beginning to fully appreciate the danger here--if only our "establishment" would start listening. Yes, I think the public in general better understands the problem--the IMMORALITY--of coercive central planning than our "elites" (including Republican "elites) do.
However, the fundamental point of this entry is that "morality" is basically a side issue, and that it is absurd to credit only liberals with "compassion". "Compassion", in terms of FEELING, has NOTHING to do with it. This is a matter of the BEST policy, and if you argue "compassion" as a way of avoiding that issue you are being IMMORAL (not to mention hypocritical and intellectually dishonest). I would mention that I would prefer not to talk about these issues in terms of "morality", or who is more "noble". But since that appears often to be the sole leftist argument--their fallback position when all of their other arguments predictably fail--I have no choice but to address these concepts
Walter Williams (conservative black economist--I think he is an economist; look him up on Wikipedia) likes to use this analogy. Say you are a person out on the street who sees a SICK homeless person living on a grate. You figure the person needs at least a thousand dollars for food, shelter and health care. You disregard the fact that giving such a person a thousand dollars may KILL the person (used on alcohol, drugs etc.), because you are a leftist moved by guilt and sentiment rather than thinking. Leftists--"moral" people that they are--routinely kill people in the name of "helping" them. You decide to give this person 1000 dollars.
What is the "noble" thing for you to do? Right. Give the person one thousand dollars out of your OWN money. That is the "noble", self-sacrificing, "moral" thing to do, if you believe that is the way to help this person. Or you could offer to take the person to a doctor/hospital, and directly pay the bill--along with taking the person home for dinner, and providing a room. That would avoid the problem of what the person would do with money. Even more to the point, you could join with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, George Soros and other like minded individuals to set up a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION to efficiently deliver health care, food, housing, and other necessities to the poor. Some of the "rich" people I have just mentioned (notably Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) have done something like that.
If you do any of the things I mention in the previous paragraph, I am willing to call you a "noble", "moral" person. Otherwise, you are simply a hypocritical leftist. Walter Williams likes to describe what you do if you are an immoral, hypocritical leftist.
What you do is that you get a gun. Then you go out and find some prosperous looking individual and ROB him (armed robbery) of $1000.00. Then you to to the poor, homeless person and give him the thousand dollars, thereby feeling good about yourself.
Is this "moral" conduct on your part? Not in this universe. Yet, that is exactly what the Federal Government does when it takes money from the "rich" and gives that money to the "poor" (for health care or anything else).
Now I understand that this is oversimplification--more on Walter Williams' part than on mine, since I don't delude myself that this argument is conclusive. It does, however, dispose of the idea, conclusively, that people who want to take OTHER PEOPLE'S money by force, and give it to third persons, are not automatically "moral".
I am willing to go further. I am willing to say that Walter Williams is right to at least a degree, and that the MOST "moral" system is one of VOLUNTARY charity. And make no doubt about it. It is charity. One of the many faults of leftists is that they lie--including refusing to call tings by their real names. Still, there is nothing wrong with helping people voluntarily. It is, indeed, a "noble" thing to do. Hospitals do it (when they are not trying to get the taxpayer to assume the burden in a fascist deal with Barack Obama). Doctors do it (ditto). Drug companies do it (ditto). Private individuals do it. Local comm unites do it (when they are not trying to engage in the FICTION of "free money" from the Federal Government). States do it (ditto). Yes, local communities and states are "government", but they are government closest to the people who are FORCED to "apy as you go" and realize exactly where money is going. Is there any objective doubt that VOLUNTARY efforts to help those who cannot afford to help themselves, including with health insurance, represent the more "noble" system. This objectively true--not even a matter of opinion. Walter Williams is right about that, and it is not even an arguable point.
"But", you sputter, "that is "IMPRACTICAL". "It can't work.". Who says? I am going to show you that it is CENTRAL PLANNING that "can't work" in future entries. It is a massive, bloated Federal Government that "can't work". But note how the argument has been reversed. Leftists are not really "noble". They want to take money from OTHER PEOPLE to give to third parties, and their only excuse for this theft is that the alternatives "can't work". That is hardly "noble" or "moral'.
Yep. Leftists are doing what they do best: being HYPOCRITES and intellectually dishonest. Th his is not a matter of "good intentions". I accept the idea that many liberals have "good intentions", but so do conservatives. Liberals may think conservatives are "hard hearted", but conservatives (ore justly) consider liberals immoral because they do HARM to the people they purport to have "heart" for int he name of "compassion". That is not real compassion. That is real "hard heartedness": where you think more of relieving your own guilt, and "feeling good", than you do of actually promoting policies that will end up benefiting the people for whom you supposedly feel "compassion".
Bottom line: Leftists/liberals deserve NO credit for the "goodness of their heart", and their "noble" aims--to the extent they really have them and are not interested mainly in personal power. The issue on health care, AND EVERYTHING ELSE, is what policy BEST accomplishes public policy goals, IN THE LONG RUN. "Noble" has nothing to do with it. "Noble" is defined totally by RESULTS. "Moral" has nothing to do with it, other than the fact that principles matter. For example, this country was founded on FREEDOM. Does an all powerful Federal Government fit at all with that concept?
Ultimately, that is the point. Central planning (by an all powerful Federal bureaucracy) does not work. Just as importantly, or more importantly, it CANNOT WORK. Experience shows you that the Federal Government cannot run things. From the post office to the military commissaries, to the Senate cafeteria/food service, the Federal Government has proved a failure. That is no accident. Central planning cannot work.
I will explain further in a future entry (or entries). But take food stamps. Has the government set up "public option" grocery stores, or "co-ops", to COMPETE with private supermarkets? You say that is ridiculous? Sure it is, but no more ridiculous than the government running health insurance/care in this country. It is the same thing. The government does this sort of thing BADLY--disastrously, in fact. There is nothing to stop the government from setting up government "supermarkets" selling food cheaper than Wal-Mart (good luck, except that the government can set any pice it wants, because it can print money.
You sy that health insurance is not as competitive as supermarkets? well, then why are you not advocating ending mergers between health care companies and otherwise promoting real competition ("real" competition and the "government option" being an oxymoron when lumped together). The idea that the government "knows" the proper price for health insurance, or anything else, is absurd. If the idea of the government deterring both what doctors/health care providers are paid, AND what coverage can be offered in health insurance policies at what price does not scare you, then you have no understanding of how the Federal Government operates (even given good faith, which does not always exist). The elderly are beginning to fully appreciate the danger here--if only our "establishment" would start listening. Yes, I think the public in general better understands the problem--the IMMORALITY--of coercive central planning than our "elites" (including Republican "elites) do.
However, the fundamental point of this entry is that "morality" is basically a side issue, and that it is absurd to credit only liberals with "compassion". "Compassion", in terms of FEELING, has NOTHING to do with it. This is a matter of the BEST policy, and if you argue "compassion" as a way of avoiding that issue you are being IMMORAL (not to mention hypocritical and intellectually dishonest). I would mention that I would prefer not to talk about these issues in terms of "morality", or who is more "noble". But since that appears often to be the sole leftist argument--their fallback position when all of their other arguments predictably fail--I have no choice but to address these concepts
Friday, September 4, 2009
Unemployment and the Economy: Have We Mortgaged Our Futre with Deficit Spending and Debt for NOTHING?
The unemployment rate ROSE in August to a 26 year high (9.7%, or almost 10%). This was after all of those orgasmic mainstream media (worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth) on August 8, about how the economy had "turned the corner", and was "improving", because of a MEANINGLESS one month "drop" in the unemployment rate to 9.4% from 9.5% (a whole .1% improvement). As pointed out at the time (right after August 8) in my Google blog, "The Maverick Conservative", the unemployment rate had "improved" a similar .1% in July of 1992, from 7.5% to 7.4%. The mainstream media at that time dismissed such a number as insignificant (being more right then about the number than they are now in trying to boost the Obama Administration by putting a happy face on every number). It turned out in 1992 that the economy really had turned from a relatively mild recession, and Bill Clinton was really WRONG in asserting that the economy was in terrible shape, with no recovery in sight.
Well, what do you say when the hyped "trend" REVERSES. That is what has happened. The unemployment rate got .3% WORSE in August, which was three times the amount it "improved" in July. You can argue that the July number was an aberration. But then you have to admit that the mainstream media was LYING in July about the significance of that number. No matter how you try to "spin" it, unemployment is NOT "improving". We are now .2% above the previous recession high of 9.5%, and at a 26 year high. 26 years ago, of course, Ronald Reagan did not panic us into socialism, and total Federal Government control of our lives, but instead set in motioning a lasting economic boom with TAX CUTS across the board (ending with a simple income tax system with only two low rates above zero, which we have complicated and messed up ever since).
It is not just the unemployment rate on which the mainstream media is reporting with total, hypocritical stupidity. Just yesterday the "headline" economic news was first time unemployment claims had "eased" 4,000. Good news", right? Nope. That is just how the media tried to play it. The number of first time claims (people losing their jobs) had dropped from 574,000 to 570,000. That is NOTHING--a statistical blip like the unemployment rate drop from 9.5% to 9.4% in July Further, the trend was WRONG (just like the August jump in the unemployment rate destroys any idea of an "improving" trend). The previous week jobless claims had dropped by 10,000. A drop of 4,000 actually represented a decelerating "improvement" in jobless claims. Further, first time unemployment claims have remained about the same for MONTHS. This means thatt he economy is no longer in "free fall", but it also means that there is no significant "improvement". Retail sales have shwon the same picture.
My blog, "The Maverick Conservative", has told you the correct situation for some two months--while the hypocritical mainstream media was hyping every bit of "news" about the economy as "good" (when the news has not been "good", but merely not total disaster--yet). What I have told you, and what is true, is that the economy has, indeed, "stabilized"--to some degree. We are "bumping along the bottom"--no longer in free fall, but not really "improving". Indications are, in fact, that we are still slightly deteriorating.
Think how BAD this really is!!!! What do I mean? I mean that we are on our way to a yearly deficit of 1.6 TRILLION dollars, and a ten year accumulated deficit of at least 9 TRILLION dollars. And there is still no clear evidence that the economy is improving. We have robbed Peter to pay Paul, for little gain. We have made it virtually impossible for our economy to further recover, by mortgaging our future, and we have little to show for it.
Take "cash for clunkers". Forget the "morality" of forcing taxpayers to help pay for CARS for some individuals. What did "cash for clunkers" do? It put some people in debut--even after the taxpayer help--for a new car they can't really afford. One "explanation" of the recent DROP in retail sales was that "cash for clunkers" had taken money from the rest of the economy. Further, the program meant that anyone who wanted a new car, and could dredge up a "clunker" anywhere, has ALREADY BOUGHT ONE under that program. The program has now ended. What now happens to auto sales? Right. NO AUTO SALES for the next few months (exaggerating slightly, but only slightly). We have merely increased the deficit to artificially accelerate auto sales into this summer, without permanently improving sales. Further, we have distorted the market, and the economy, in doing so--to our ultimate detriment.
Yes, we really are in bad shape. We have spent enormous amounts of money we don't have, and committed to spending much more, with no discernible benefit. We appear to have gone insane, or rather our leaders have--acting like government spending and central planning can solve everything because we have leaders who know all, see all, and can do all (lol). The people who oppose an health care "overhaul", especially at this time when we don't have the money to even try that bad idea, know that this is INSANITY.
Our leaders, and mainstream media, do not appear to realize this is insane. That is why I am a pessimist here. Our "leaders", and our media, appear determined to force this stuff down our throat, even after we have come to our senses ("we" referring to most of the public). It is enough to drive one to despair.
If we have mortgaged our future, and are still this bad off, "despair" is the only rational response. Joe Biden has said all of this lurch into unrestrained spending and central planning was necessary to "aovid" a depression. The facts seem to suggest that these polities will CREATE a depression as our "chickens come home to roost" (in the immortal words of Reverend Wright, and probably Van Jones, referring to 9/11).
Well, what do you say when the hyped "trend" REVERSES. That is what has happened. The unemployment rate got .3% WORSE in August, which was three times the amount it "improved" in July. You can argue that the July number was an aberration. But then you have to admit that the mainstream media was LYING in July about the significance of that number. No matter how you try to "spin" it, unemployment is NOT "improving". We are now .2% above the previous recession high of 9.5%, and at a 26 year high. 26 years ago, of course, Ronald Reagan did not panic us into socialism, and total Federal Government control of our lives, but instead set in motioning a lasting economic boom with TAX CUTS across the board (ending with a simple income tax system with only two low rates above zero, which we have complicated and messed up ever since).
It is not just the unemployment rate on which the mainstream media is reporting with total, hypocritical stupidity. Just yesterday the "headline" economic news was first time unemployment claims had "eased" 4,000. Good news", right? Nope. That is just how the media tried to play it. The number of first time claims (people losing their jobs) had dropped from 574,000 to 570,000. That is NOTHING--a statistical blip like the unemployment rate drop from 9.5% to 9.4% in July Further, the trend was WRONG (just like the August jump in the unemployment rate destroys any idea of an "improving" trend). The previous week jobless claims had dropped by 10,000. A drop of 4,000 actually represented a decelerating "improvement" in jobless claims. Further, first time unemployment claims have remained about the same for MONTHS. This means thatt he economy is no longer in "free fall", but it also means that there is no significant "improvement". Retail sales have shwon the same picture.
My blog, "The Maverick Conservative", has told you the correct situation for some two months--while the hypocritical mainstream media was hyping every bit of "news" about the economy as "good" (when the news has not been "good", but merely not total disaster--yet). What I have told you, and what is true, is that the economy has, indeed, "stabilized"--to some degree. We are "bumping along the bottom"--no longer in free fall, but not really "improving". Indications are, in fact, that we are still slightly deteriorating.
Think how BAD this really is!!!! What do I mean? I mean that we are on our way to a yearly deficit of 1.6 TRILLION dollars, and a ten year accumulated deficit of at least 9 TRILLION dollars. And there is still no clear evidence that the economy is improving. We have robbed Peter to pay Paul, for little gain. We have made it virtually impossible for our economy to further recover, by mortgaging our future, and we have little to show for it.
Take "cash for clunkers". Forget the "morality" of forcing taxpayers to help pay for CARS for some individuals. What did "cash for clunkers" do? It put some people in debut--even after the taxpayer help--for a new car they can't really afford. One "explanation" of the recent DROP in retail sales was that "cash for clunkers" had taken money from the rest of the economy. Further, the program meant that anyone who wanted a new car, and could dredge up a "clunker" anywhere, has ALREADY BOUGHT ONE under that program. The program has now ended. What now happens to auto sales? Right. NO AUTO SALES for the next few months (exaggerating slightly, but only slightly). We have merely increased the deficit to artificially accelerate auto sales into this summer, without permanently improving sales. Further, we have distorted the market, and the economy, in doing so--to our ultimate detriment.
Yes, we really are in bad shape. We have spent enormous amounts of money we don't have, and committed to spending much more, with no discernible benefit. We appear to have gone insane, or rather our leaders have--acting like government spending and central planning can solve everything because we have leaders who know all, see all, and can do all (lol). The people who oppose an health care "overhaul", especially at this time when we don't have the money to even try that bad idea, know that this is INSANITY.
Our leaders, and mainstream media, do not appear to realize this is insane. That is why I am a pessimist here. Our "leaders", and our media, appear determined to force this stuff down our throat, even after we have come to our senses ("we" referring to most of the public). It is enough to drive one to despair.
If we have mortgaged our future, and are still this bad off, "despair" is the only rational response. Joe Biden has said all of this lurch into unrestrained spending and central planning was necessary to "aovid" a depression. The facts seem to suggest that these polities will CREATE a depression as our "chickens come home to roost" (in the immortal words of Reverend Wright, and probably Van Jones, referring to 9/11).
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Mexico, A Failed Country: Massacre in Juarez (Ignored By Mainstream Media, As Usual)
Yes, this is today's news dispatch from El Paso, almost on the front lines of the WAR taking place in Juarez, Mexico. Juarez, Mexico is right across the Rio Grande from El Paso--less than 5 miles from where I am typing this.
For the past two years or more, I have been regularly posting stories from El Paso, about Juarez and Mexico, on "The Maverick Conservative" (my Google blog), under the general heading of "Mexico, a Failed Country". It is getting worse--proving me right, as usual.
Today's story in El Paso was about the MASSACRE in Juarez. The El Paso reports were that "at least" 17 people were killed, when a group of people were lined up and shot. More than 17 were shot, indicating that the death toll may have gone higher.
This is a little bit worse than usual, but only a little. For two years or so there has been a WAR going on in Juarez between drug cartels, and members of drug cartels. That is a separate problem from the problem of the unsolved murders of HUNDREDS of young women--dumped in burial grounds along the border after they are killed.
You can look at the archives of "The Maverick Conservative" for entry after entry about the drug war killings in Juarez. They now total in the thousands in the past two years. Yet, if you rely on the mainstream media for your "news", you know little about it. The "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name n first reference) regularly reports CIVILIAN (not American) deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq--often seeming to note almost every death in that ongoing war. Meanwhile, Juarez is now MORE dangerous than Baghdad, but you would not know it from the despicable AP. Why are deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan--thousands of miles away--more important than thousands of deaths occurring within 5-20 miles of El Paso (if not closer, since the El Paso border is a matter of a hundred feet or so from the Juarez border--basically ni the center of the Rio Grande). Yes, I do believe it has something to do with the Anti-American, anti-war agenda of the despicable AP (and the rest of the mainstream media), along with an agenda in favor of "open borders" with Mexico (talk about INSANITY, but that is really the position of leftist Democrats like Obama--at least before Obama realized that the deteriorating situation in Mexico and the recession made encouragement of illegal immigration impossible). Thousands of people have been murdered in JUAREZ ALONE in the past two years. That does not even include other border cities and towns, or the rest of Mexico.
What remains amazing is that this incredible level of violence has not YET spread to El Paso, except for one or two isolated instances. Yes, people from El Paso (quite a few now) have DIED in Juarez. But El Paso did not even suffer its first murder until February, and that was an ordinary murder (unrelated to Juarez, as almost all--relatively minor, in comparison with some other cities in the U.S., El Paso violence has been unrelated to Juarez. Juarez victims have been fairly often rushed to El Paso hospitals, maintly the county hospital, but the costly extra security (for people like injured Juarez policemen) has not yet been justified by actual attacks from the ldrug cartels in Juarez. Obviously, the spreading of Juarez violence to El Paso remains a very real danger. The mayor even has a house here, and the drug cartel threatened to come after him in El Paso when he fled Juarez in terror a few months ago.
I have not seen any mainstream media reports on the massacre in Juarez (for example, on Yahoo News, which regularly uses the despicable AP. I did see a report on Fox News, while surfing (don't regularly watch), and Fox News has often provided more coverage of Juarez and Mexican violence. I find it hard to believe t hat the mainstream media can ignore this massacre, and maybe they have not (I do not seek out mainstream media "news"). I am pretty sure, however, that they will continue to play down the deteriorating situation in Juarez, and in Mexico.
If you are deluded that you are getting objective "news" from the mainstream media, you are mistaken. I will continue to give my periodic updates, but the reality is that I could do a new story every day (like the AP tends to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is getting that bad along the Mexican border, even if the really bad stuff has not YET spread to places like El Paso. Phoenix may have suffered more from the problem spreading across the border.
For the past two years or more, I have been regularly posting stories from El Paso, about Juarez and Mexico, on "The Maverick Conservative" (my Google blog), under the general heading of "Mexico, a Failed Country". It is getting worse--proving me right, as usual.
Today's story in El Paso was about the MASSACRE in Juarez. The El Paso reports were that "at least" 17 people were killed, when a group of people were lined up and shot. More than 17 were shot, indicating that the death toll may have gone higher.
This is a little bit worse than usual, but only a little. For two years or so there has been a WAR going on in Juarez between drug cartels, and members of drug cartels. That is a separate problem from the problem of the unsolved murders of HUNDREDS of young women--dumped in burial grounds along the border after they are killed.
You can look at the archives of "The Maverick Conservative" for entry after entry about the drug war killings in Juarez. They now total in the thousands in the past two years. Yet, if you rely on the mainstream media for your "news", you know little about it. The "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name n first reference) regularly reports CIVILIAN (not American) deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq--often seeming to note almost every death in that ongoing war. Meanwhile, Juarez is now MORE dangerous than Baghdad, but you would not know it from the despicable AP. Why are deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan--thousands of miles away--more important than thousands of deaths occurring within 5-20 miles of El Paso (if not closer, since the El Paso border is a matter of a hundred feet or so from the Juarez border--basically ni the center of the Rio Grande). Yes, I do believe it has something to do with the Anti-American, anti-war agenda of the despicable AP (and the rest of the mainstream media), along with an agenda in favor of "open borders" with Mexico (talk about INSANITY, but that is really the position of leftist Democrats like Obama--at least before Obama realized that the deteriorating situation in Mexico and the recession made encouragement of illegal immigration impossible). Thousands of people have been murdered in JUAREZ ALONE in the past two years. That does not even include other border cities and towns, or the rest of Mexico.
What remains amazing is that this incredible level of violence has not YET spread to El Paso, except for one or two isolated instances. Yes, people from El Paso (quite a few now) have DIED in Juarez. But El Paso did not even suffer its first murder until February, and that was an ordinary murder (unrelated to Juarez, as almost all--relatively minor, in comparison with some other cities in the U.S., El Paso violence has been unrelated to Juarez. Juarez victims have been fairly often rushed to El Paso hospitals, maintly the county hospital, but the costly extra security (for people like injured Juarez policemen) has not yet been justified by actual attacks from the ldrug cartels in Juarez. Obviously, the spreading of Juarez violence to El Paso remains a very real danger. The mayor even has a house here, and the drug cartel threatened to come after him in El Paso when he fled Juarez in terror a few months ago.
I have not seen any mainstream media reports on the massacre in Juarez (for example, on Yahoo News, which regularly uses the despicable AP. I did see a report on Fox News, while surfing (don't regularly watch), and Fox News has often provided more coverage of Juarez and Mexican violence. I find it hard to believe t hat the mainstream media can ignore this massacre, and maybe they have not (I do not seek out mainstream media "news"). I am pretty sure, however, that they will continue to play down the deteriorating situation in Juarez, and in Mexico.
If you are deluded that you are getting objective "news" from the mainstream media, you are mistaken. I will continue to give my periodic updates, but the reality is that I could do a new story every day (like the AP tends to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is getting that bad along the Mexican border, even if the really bad stuff has not YET spread to places like El Paso. Phoenix may have suffered more from the problem spreading across the border.
Obama Health Care Supporter Bites Off Elderly Opponent's Finger: Are the Obama Administration and Their Supporters Targeting the Elderly?
"Health Care Activist Bites Off Finger of Health Care Reform Opponent" was something like the headline on the Los Angeles Times website earlier today. According to Marc Stein, the printed Los Angeles Times got the story completely wrong this morning (as usual for the mainstream media in general, and Los Angeles Times in particular), and said that it was the supporter of Obama who got his finger bitten off. The Drudge headline was more accurate all day, essentially saying this: "Obamacare supporter bites off finger of opponent." I heard a witness describe the attack on the radio (Marc Stein again), and here is my much more accurate headline:
Obama Health Care Supporter from Moveon.org Group Targets Elderly Person (65), and Bites Off Finger
Yes, the headline is a little long, but gets the essential facts across. My subheading/lead would be: "Are Obama Supporters Conducting War on Elderly, and Is this being Encouraged by the Attacks of the Obama Administration on Town Hall protesters"?
Let me explain the facts more fully. I heard the eyewitness description, which is also in the present Los Angeles Times story. A Moveon.org group--Moveon.org being a group that has supported Obama and leftist Democrats for years--was demonstrating on one side of the street in Thousand Oaks, California. A group opposing the Obama health care "plan" (no Obama "plan" yet exists) was demonstrating across the street. One of the Obama supporters crossed the street, and appeared to target the most elderly of the group opposing health care "reform". This Obama supporter crossed a travelled street rather erratic, and came right up into the face of the elderly person ("like a baseball coach/manager in the face of an umpire"). The elderly man tried to defend himself, and a scuffle ensued. The Moveon.org supporter bit off a substantial part of a finger of the elderly man, leaving only a "stub" gushing blood. The Obama supporter evidently returned to his group for a little while, but disappeared before the police arrived.
The above is not the only basis for my subheading. Marc Stein (sp.?) was the guest host on the Rush Limbaugh radio program today. He had that eyewitness call into the program. We know the persno was real, because the Los Angeles Times is reporting an identical eyewitness account. Well, an Obama supporter caller was put on the program immediately following tis witness. That caller was not too much interested in the elderly person who got his finger bitten off, although he did express his regret that it had happened. The caller did not understand why the elderly person (the one with his finger bitten off), and so many other elderly persons, oppose health care "overhaul", when Medicare is a government program (this particular elderly person having evidently expressed opposition to government taking over too much when first confronted by the Obama supporter, who asked belligerently why the elderly person was against Obamacare). The caller expressed the view that the elderly should appreciate, more than anyone else, the worth of government programs/control.
You can see the point here. Are the Obama Administration, and its supporters, encouraging an anti-elderly attitude that could lead to violence? Has the Obama Administration, in fact, become anti-elderly? Don't be quick to dismiss this. It has more credibility than the idea that opponents of health care reform are responsible for a lone Swastika supposedly drawn by an anonymous health care "overhaul" opponent on a wall. The caller I heard definitely was expressing angry resentment against those elderly who don't want their "benefits" extended to the rest of us. Elderly people have been attacked by union thugs at town hall meetings. Time Magazine (see entry of a day or two ago) expressed "puzzlement' (and LIED--see entry again) as to why the elderly have turned so far against health care "reform"--to the point of attacking AARP (correctly attacking AARP--see previous entry again). The elderly has reason to believe that they are being targeted here.
Nope. The elderly opposed to undermining Medicare with health care "reform" are NOT being hypocrites. the hypocrites here are the mainstream media and the left--the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth--for the hypocrisy of their attitudes toward both protests and guilt by association. Health care opponents are supposed to be defined by the worst of them, while health care proponents are only supposed to be defined by the best of them. Moeveon.org can protest and confront, as can union thugs, but elderly Obama opponents are not supposed to do that. Nancy Pelosi can call anti-war protesters, as she did, the essence of "Americans" for their protests, but call anti-health care demonstrators "un-American" (as she did).
What about that charge that the elderly should support ALL government programs? Do you mean they should support EVERYONE receiving Social Security checks? Are Obama socialists really that bad, and that stupid? I think they are. You might remember how both Medicare and Social Security were SOLD. Just like with this new, proposed health care "overhaul", we were told that they were not the beginning of a Federal Government takeover of our lives--or, as to Medicare, a beginning toward socialized medicine. Instead, the elderly were told that they had EARNED a minimum dignity in their old age--that society was merely paying back a debt it owed to the elderly for their contributions to society over their lifetime. Not enough to make elderly rich, but a way to make sure that their old age was lived with some minimum of dignity, when they no longer could reasonably be expected to continue to work for themselves. Everyone could retire with some dignity, without having to worry about their elderly years being a nightmare because of no money and no medical care.
Look at how the Obama Administration, and leftist Democrats, have BETRAYED the elderly. They are faced with the financial integrity of both Medicare and Social Security being destroyed by grandiose attempts to expand the Federal Government. So much for promises. The elderly are faced with the prospect of the Obama Administration "paying for" (see yesterday's entry) health care "reform" by cutting ("savings" in) Meidcare. They are faced with the prospect that Federal bureaucrats may eventually decide that "efficiency" and "cost control" means that elderly people should not get such a big share of health care dollars. "Die already" may be the eventual message. The message has totally changed from dignity for the elderly, because they have EARNED it and can't be expected to work forever, to a message of a massive Federal Government CONTROLLING all of our lives--often at the expense of the elderly.
No wonder the elderly resent this, and no wonder the elderly are being suddenly targeted by Obama supporters--including people like thous in charge of AARP who may be elderly themselves, but who want to USE the elderly for their own selfish purposes.
Obama Health Care Supporter from Moveon.org Group Targets Elderly Person (65), and Bites Off Finger
Yes, the headline is a little long, but gets the essential facts across. My subheading/lead would be: "Are Obama Supporters Conducting War on Elderly, and Is this being Encouraged by the Attacks of the Obama Administration on Town Hall protesters"?
Let me explain the facts more fully. I heard the eyewitness description, which is also in the present Los Angeles Times story. A Moveon.org group--Moveon.org being a group that has supported Obama and leftist Democrats for years--was demonstrating on one side of the street in Thousand Oaks, California. A group opposing the Obama health care "plan" (no Obama "plan" yet exists) was demonstrating across the street. One of the Obama supporters crossed the street, and appeared to target the most elderly of the group opposing health care "reform". This Obama supporter crossed a travelled street rather erratic, and came right up into the face of the elderly person ("like a baseball coach/manager in the face of an umpire"). The elderly man tried to defend himself, and a scuffle ensued. The Moveon.org supporter bit off a substantial part of a finger of the elderly man, leaving only a "stub" gushing blood. The Obama supporter evidently returned to his group for a little while, but disappeared before the police arrived.
The above is not the only basis for my subheading. Marc Stein (sp.?) was the guest host on the Rush Limbaugh radio program today. He had that eyewitness call into the program. We know the persno was real, because the Los Angeles Times is reporting an identical eyewitness account. Well, an Obama supporter caller was put on the program immediately following tis witness. That caller was not too much interested in the elderly person who got his finger bitten off, although he did express his regret that it had happened. The caller did not understand why the elderly person (the one with his finger bitten off), and so many other elderly persons, oppose health care "overhaul", when Medicare is a government program (this particular elderly person having evidently expressed opposition to government taking over too much when first confronted by the Obama supporter, who asked belligerently why the elderly person was against Obamacare). The caller expressed the view that the elderly should appreciate, more than anyone else, the worth of government programs/control.
You can see the point here. Are the Obama Administration, and its supporters, encouraging an anti-elderly attitude that could lead to violence? Has the Obama Administration, in fact, become anti-elderly? Don't be quick to dismiss this. It has more credibility than the idea that opponents of health care reform are responsible for a lone Swastika supposedly drawn by an anonymous health care "overhaul" opponent on a wall. The caller I heard definitely was expressing angry resentment against those elderly who don't want their "benefits" extended to the rest of us. Elderly people have been attacked by union thugs at town hall meetings. Time Magazine (see entry of a day or two ago) expressed "puzzlement' (and LIED--see entry again) as to why the elderly have turned so far against health care "reform"--to the point of attacking AARP (correctly attacking AARP--see previous entry again). The elderly has reason to believe that they are being targeted here.
Nope. The elderly opposed to undermining Medicare with health care "reform" are NOT being hypocrites. the hypocrites here are the mainstream media and the left--the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth--for the hypocrisy of their attitudes toward both protests and guilt by association. Health care opponents are supposed to be defined by the worst of them, while health care proponents are only supposed to be defined by the best of them. Moeveon.org can protest and confront, as can union thugs, but elderly Obama opponents are not supposed to do that. Nancy Pelosi can call anti-war protesters, as she did, the essence of "Americans" for their protests, but call anti-health care demonstrators "un-American" (as she did).
What about that charge that the elderly should support ALL government programs? Do you mean they should support EVERYONE receiving Social Security checks? Are Obama socialists really that bad, and that stupid? I think they are. You might remember how both Medicare and Social Security were SOLD. Just like with this new, proposed health care "overhaul", we were told that they were not the beginning of a Federal Government takeover of our lives--or, as to Medicare, a beginning toward socialized medicine. Instead, the elderly were told that they had EARNED a minimum dignity in their old age--that society was merely paying back a debt it owed to the elderly for their contributions to society over their lifetime. Not enough to make elderly rich, but a way to make sure that their old age was lived with some minimum of dignity, when they no longer could reasonably be expected to continue to work for themselves. Everyone could retire with some dignity, without having to worry about their elderly years being a nightmare because of no money and no medical care.
Look at how the Obama Administration, and leftist Democrats, have BETRAYED the elderly. They are faced with the financial integrity of both Medicare and Social Security being destroyed by grandiose attempts to expand the Federal Government. So much for promises. The elderly are faced with the prospect of the Obama Administration "paying for" (see yesterday's entry) health care "reform" by cutting ("savings" in) Meidcare. They are faced with the prospect that Federal bureaucrats may eventually decide that "efficiency" and "cost control" means that elderly people should not get such a big share of health care dollars. "Die already" may be the eventual message. The message has totally changed from dignity for the elderly, because they have EARNED it and can't be expected to work forever, to a message of a massive Federal Government CONTROLLING all of our lives--often at the expense of the elderly.
No wonder the elderly resent this, and no wonder the elderly are being suddenly targeted by Obama supporters--including people like thous in charge of AARP who may be elderly themselves, but who want to USE the elderly for their own selfish purposes.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Health Care and Deficits/Debt: Dave Ramsey Spinning in Ted Kennedy's Grave
Don't you like this absurdity of "paying for" a new health care "overhaul"? Yes, it is objectively an absurdity, and I am going to explain exactly why.
Let us start off with President Obama and his Treasury Secretary: "We can't sustain deficits like this and still maintain an economic recovery." Obama and Geitner are RIGHT when they say this, but then contradict themselves with their actions and other statements. The proposed health care "overhaul" is one of those contradictions.
The Obama Administration had to revise its estimate of the accumulated deficits over the next 10 years from 7 (or so) TRILLION dollars to approximately 9 TRILLION dollars. Those are the very kind of deficits that Obama and Geitner have eloquently said (if only they meant it) that we "can't sustain". Ten years is "sustaining those unacceptable deficits. It gets worse.
You will note that the estimates for the next ten years both do not include health care "overhaul" and envision large deficits over a long period of time. In other words, we have not only spent money that we don't have--bu idling our debt which will eventually lead to skyrocketing interest rates and inflation. We are further projecting that we will CONTINUE to spend money we don't have for the next ten years. That means we need EVERY PENNY to offset the spending we are already projecting, without health care "overhaul", and cannot afford ANY new Federal programs (much less a massive new entitlement in health care). We are not "paying for" the programs we now have, and it is ridiculous to talk about "paying for" health care.
To show this concretely, let us go to Dave Ramsey. Dave Ramsey is the financial advisor whose primary advice is that people stop spending money that they don't have: that people become "debt free". The headline is a reference to the fact that the approach to Federal spending must drive Ramsey crazy--thus the reference to "spinning in Kennedy's grave", even though Ramsey is very much alive. Kennedy, of course (at least in virtual reality, as far as his spirit is concerned) is not really using his grave, having Risen (or been called) from that grave to somehow rescue the Obama health care plan.
Therefore, let us apply Dave Ramsey common sense to the deficit. Assume you are an individual with $100,000.00 in present debt (credit cards and loans outside of your house). Assume, further, that you have rejected the Dave Ramsey approach, and have decided that you need to spend one million dollars MORE THAN YOUR REVENUE over the next ten years to maintain the lifestyle you want. Forget how impractical this is. Your Federal government is planning to do exactly this (on a scale of trillions).
You can see the problem here. Such an individual, spending beyond his means, is going to be accumulating a CRUSHING debt from which he can never recover. However, assume that this individual gets Dave Ramsey religion, or says he does. Thus, he goes out and gets a second job, and comes up with "savings" (perhaps including promised "discounts" from present creditors) on that million dollars in projected spending. So far so good.
Wait a moment, though. What if that individual decides he NEEDS to spend, or thinks it is "compassionate" to spend, another $100,000 per year on health care/health insurance for his COUSINS. Can he afford it? Assume that this new job, and "savings", add up to $100,000.00 a year (total fantasy when applied to any presently proposed health care "overhaul"). No problem, right? You just use the new $100,000 in revenue to "pay for" the health care for the cousins (who otherwise might get the health care from employers, hospitals, etc. without it being provided by their generous cousin, or might not want to get health care at all by choice).
WRONG. It is this reasoning that should have Dave Ramsey spinning in Kennedy's grave. Dave Ramsey recommended that this guy (who we are assuming, but Ramsey has given similar advice to real individuals spending beyond their means) that he start cutting into his debt by extra jobs, reduced spending, etc. That is because if he does not do that his current level of spending will OVERWHELM him with debt he can't handle--even the present level of debt being too high. What happens if this guy trying to follow Ramsey's advice spends every extra cent of revenue he can raise, and every penny he can save, on NEW SPENDING? Right. He is NOT "paying for" the new spending. He is simply digging himself further into the hole of spending money he does not have, on a consistent and continuing basis.
That is why it makes no sense to talk about "paying for" health care "overhaul". We NEED EVERY PENNY we can raise and save to try to keep our already projected spending from overwhelming us. The Congressional Budget Office, and almost all independent observers (including Obama, when he is admitting that he has to spend money to "insure" those 50 million uninsured) agree that health care "overhaul" will ADD substantially to the deficit.
It does not matter. Even if health care "overhaul" did not add one single penny to the deficit, we could not afford it, because we need every single penny of additional revenue (and "savings") to keep our spending from overwhelming us. We can't afford to divert any such resources to a NEW Federal program. In fact, we desperately need such efforts to SAVE Medicare and Social Security, which are in extreme danger from spending money we don't have.
Let us start off with President Obama and his Treasury Secretary: "We can't sustain deficits like this and still maintain an economic recovery." Obama and Geitner are RIGHT when they say this, but then contradict themselves with their actions and other statements. The proposed health care "overhaul" is one of those contradictions.
The Obama Administration had to revise its estimate of the accumulated deficits over the next 10 years from 7 (or so) TRILLION dollars to approximately 9 TRILLION dollars. Those are the very kind of deficits that Obama and Geitner have eloquently said (if only they meant it) that we "can't sustain". Ten years is "sustaining those unacceptable deficits. It gets worse.
You will note that the estimates for the next ten years both do not include health care "overhaul" and envision large deficits over a long period of time. In other words, we have not only spent money that we don't have--bu idling our debt which will eventually lead to skyrocketing interest rates and inflation. We are further projecting that we will CONTINUE to spend money we don't have for the next ten years. That means we need EVERY PENNY to offset the spending we are already projecting, without health care "overhaul", and cannot afford ANY new Federal programs (much less a massive new entitlement in health care). We are not "paying for" the programs we now have, and it is ridiculous to talk about "paying for" health care.
To show this concretely, let us go to Dave Ramsey. Dave Ramsey is the financial advisor whose primary advice is that people stop spending money that they don't have: that people become "debt free". The headline is a reference to the fact that the approach to Federal spending must drive Ramsey crazy--thus the reference to "spinning in Kennedy's grave", even though Ramsey is very much alive. Kennedy, of course (at least in virtual reality, as far as his spirit is concerned) is not really using his grave, having Risen (or been called) from that grave to somehow rescue the Obama health care plan.
Therefore, let us apply Dave Ramsey common sense to the deficit. Assume you are an individual with $100,000.00 in present debt (credit cards and loans outside of your house). Assume, further, that you have rejected the Dave Ramsey approach, and have decided that you need to spend one million dollars MORE THAN YOUR REVENUE over the next ten years to maintain the lifestyle you want. Forget how impractical this is. Your Federal government is planning to do exactly this (on a scale of trillions).
You can see the problem here. Such an individual, spending beyond his means, is going to be accumulating a CRUSHING debt from which he can never recover. However, assume that this individual gets Dave Ramsey religion, or says he does. Thus, he goes out and gets a second job, and comes up with "savings" (perhaps including promised "discounts" from present creditors) on that million dollars in projected spending. So far so good.
Wait a moment, though. What if that individual decides he NEEDS to spend, or thinks it is "compassionate" to spend, another $100,000 per year on health care/health insurance for his COUSINS. Can he afford it? Assume that this new job, and "savings", add up to $100,000.00 a year (total fantasy when applied to any presently proposed health care "overhaul"). No problem, right? You just use the new $100,000 in revenue to "pay for" the health care for the cousins (who otherwise might get the health care from employers, hospitals, etc. without it being provided by their generous cousin, or might not want to get health care at all by choice).
WRONG. It is this reasoning that should have Dave Ramsey spinning in Kennedy's grave. Dave Ramsey recommended that this guy (who we are assuming, but Ramsey has given similar advice to real individuals spending beyond their means) that he start cutting into his debt by extra jobs, reduced spending, etc. That is because if he does not do that his current level of spending will OVERWHELM him with debt he can't handle--even the present level of debt being too high. What happens if this guy trying to follow Ramsey's advice spends every extra cent of revenue he can raise, and every penny he can save, on NEW SPENDING? Right. He is NOT "paying for" the new spending. He is simply digging himself further into the hole of spending money he does not have, on a consistent and continuing basis.
That is why it makes no sense to talk about "paying for" health care "overhaul". We NEED EVERY PENNY we can raise and save to try to keep our already projected spending from overwhelming us. The Congressional Budget Office, and almost all independent observers (including Obama, when he is admitting that he has to spend money to "insure" those 50 million uninsured) agree that health care "overhaul" will ADD substantially to the deficit.
It does not matter. Even if health care "overhaul" did not add one single penny to the deficit, we could not afford it, because we need every single penny of additional revenue (and "savings") to keep our spending from overwhelming us. We can't afford to divert any such resources to a NEW Federal program. In fact, we desperately need such efforts to SAVE Medicare and Social Security, which are in extreme danger from spending money we don't have.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
AARP--Who Tells Bigger Lies: AARP, Time Magazine or President Obama
"Many observers are puzzled by the level of anger and vitriol senior citizens have been directing toward their besieged elected representatives during recent health-care town halls. But no one can be more surprised, or put in a more uncomfortable position, than the organization that supposedly represents their interests, AARP. The 40 million–member advocacy group, after all, signed on early as a key supporter of President Obama's health-care-reform plan, and now it finds itself on the defensive, scrambling to win back much of its own membership. "A year ago, it seemed obvious that AARP would be for health reform," says the group's legislative-policy director David Certner. "Our membership as far as we could tell was quite ginned up about health-care reform"
The above atrocity is the first paragraph of a 9/01/2009 story from Time Magazine "Buzz" featured on the left leaning Yahoo News (Time being not "left leaning", but as left as you can get--somewhere left of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, who recently suggested he was to the right of President Ob ama).
First, there is NO such thing as an "Obama health care plan". The public understands that, if Time Magazine does not. That is what makes Oba'ama's assertions, in the nature of unsupported conclusions, about what his "health care plan" will do so absurd. The most Obama has is a vague concept of Federal CONTROL of health care in this country (whether through a "government option" and the 45 or so Federal agencies which would be created under the House bill, or exercised in some other manner). If you dispute the word "control", explain to me (Obama does not, and the mainstream media does not) HOW Obama intends to "control costs" and otherwise accomplish the goals he says he wants to accomplish. Vague goals are not a "plan". If Obama does not intend to have Federal bureaucrats tell both doctors and insurance companies what they may and may not do (Federal control), exactly HOW does he intend to accomplish those "wonderful" things he claims the Federal Government bureaucrats can accomplish for us (against all experience)?
You will recall about two weeks ago, when President Obama said that AARP was "on board" with his "plan". Time Magazine repeats that assertion above, even to the point of saying that AARP was "on board" EARLY. However, AARP issued a statement after Obama's assertion, saying that AARP had endorsed NO health care plan--a specific denial that it was "on board" with regard to the "Obama health care plan", in specific response to Obma's claim to the contrary.
Who is lying here? Is it Obama, who claimed an "endorsement" he did not have? Is it AARP, whose "leaders" have been all over the media attacking opponents of Federal control of health care? Is it Time Magazine, who has REPEATED Obama's assertion, even after that statement by the AARP? How about all three, which is the correct answer.
President Obama was falsely claiming an endorsement he does not have for a plan that does not exist. The AARP was suggesting that it had not betrayed its members by attacking them all over TV--giving everyone the idea that AARP had been bought off by Obama. Yet, AARP knows very well it has tired to give everyone the impression AARP has endorsed the non-existent "Obama health care plan", when it has not. Time, of course, routinely lies, and has done so again (ignoring the AARP response to the Obama assertion, as if there were not massive deception being practiced all around here).
Note that "many observers" bit in the very first sentence of the Time article. That is "journalist" speak for the mainstream media itself. Of course the mainstream media is "puzzled". They think that the general public--especially seniors--are HICKS who should take their lead from the mainstream media. That is the same attitude that the nation's "elites" in general have, including a significant part of the Republican Party "establishment". That is why there is no "puzzle" here. Would you not be angry if you saw these effete snobs telling you that you did not know what you are talking abut, when you are aware that you know more about the subject than either the mainstream media or a President who seems oblivious to actual facts (as distinguished from soaring rhetoric)? Darn right you would be "angry", and senior citizens are angry that their "supposed" advocates at AARP have turned out to have the same attitude: That seniors are HICKS who need to be guided by the "leadership" of AARP, who regard the members as a mere power base to use to advance their own interests and agenda rather than to be consulted and respected. The AARP "leadership" has exposed itself as totally uncaring about the views of its members, just as members of Congress (and the mainstream media) have exposed themselves as totally uncaring of the views of the public. Yet, on this issue the views of the "angry" public are more informed and correct than the views of the Big Government "elites", and the public is angry that their "leaders" can be both so arrogant and so dumb.
Ask yourself. Has the mainstream media made an effort to explain exactly what powers the new Federal agencies created by a health care "overhaul" wil have? What about the "old" Federal agencies? It is no good saying, as Obama and the mainstream media have attempted to do, what the non-existent "Obama health care plan" will NOT do. What WILL it do? And I don't mean platitudes. What, SPECIFICALLY, will it do? What regulations will Federal bbureaucrats be empowered to issue.? What will Federal bureaucrats have tohe power to determine what MUST be in all health insurance policies? Will Federal bureaucrats have the power to determine what doctors will be paid (like Medicare--see yesterday's entry)? Has AARP shown any interest in what powers Federally agencies will be given under the "Obama health care plan"? Of course not. AARP (the people in charge) has only shown and interest in being PART of the power group who is going to tell everyone else what to do (just like the AMA, members of Congress, Wal-Mart, Big Pharma, and all of the rest being willing to "partner" with the Federal Government to sell out the people).
What did AARP actually do to find out what its members thought? I think the evidence is that they did NOTHING, because they expected the members to have no mind of their own. We know that the AARP has done little to try to force the DETAILS of the "Obama health care plan" to be explained. We further know that AARP "leaders" have been attacking opponents of health care "reform"--which often means attacking their own members--even while issuing statements that AARP has endorsed no "specific plan" (as Obama has proposed none). The Time story makes clear that AARP "leadership" is more interested in placating its members than in really paying attention to what its members believe.
Notice the reference in the quoted paragraph from the Time article to "a year ago". Has anything changed in a year--anything that the people (including seniors) have noticed, and the "elite", arrogant, effete snobs in AARP, the mainstream media, and government do not seem to have noticed? Yep, something has changed.
A year ago the deficit, and accumulated debt, appeared to be a manageable, if concerning, problem. Now our deficit, and our debt, are totally out of control. The Obama Administration just raised the the projected debt level at the end of the next ten years from 7 TRILLION dollars to nine TRILLION dollars. Even that number is probably optimistic. President Obama himself has said that deficits att his level cannot be "sustained", and yet he is now assaying that they WILL be sustained for the next TEN YEARS.
The public, including seniors, realize that--as Obama said--this is intolerable. Even if Federal control of health care and health insurance had any merit, which it does not, we cannot afford to create a new "entitlement" at this time. Medicare is in DANGER (as seniors realize). Social Security is in DANGER. These deficits, and accumulated debt, make it probable (not merely possible) that we cannot give senior citizens what they have already been promised. The Obama "health care plan" (whatever it is) will be merely another nail in that coffin, and senior citizens realize it. Any "savings", and any additional revenue, need to be applied to save what we now have. Time, the rest of the mainstream media, Congress, and AARP do not seem to realize that there is NO money for the "Obama health care plan". New taxes, "savings", etc. do NOT create "money" to "pay for" a new health care plan. We have already SPENT all of that money, and much more. We are not "paying for" a health care plan when we are building a 9 TRILLION dollar debt over the next ten years (without a health care plan that will certainly add to that intolerable debt).
That is the biggest LIE of all: that ANY government program is being "paid for" when we are spending our way--with money we dont have--accumulated deficits over the next ten years of 9 TRILLION dollars. The public understands this. Our "elites" do not. I would rather be a HICK. Hicks are obviously smarter.
P.S. Yes, I am basically a "senior citizen"--62 years old. I long ago abandoned AARP which I understood that it was a Big Government organization more interested in the power of its leaders than in the real interests of its members
The above atrocity is the first paragraph of a 9/01/2009 story from Time Magazine "Buzz" featured on the left leaning Yahoo News (Time being not "left leaning", but as left as you can get--somewhere left of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, who recently suggested he was to the right of President Ob ama).
First, there is NO such thing as an "Obama health care plan". The public understands that, if Time Magazine does not. That is what makes Oba'ama's assertions, in the nature of unsupported conclusions, about what his "health care plan" will do so absurd. The most Obama has is a vague concept of Federal CONTROL of health care in this country (whether through a "government option" and the 45 or so Federal agencies which would be created under the House bill, or exercised in some other manner). If you dispute the word "control", explain to me (Obama does not, and the mainstream media does not) HOW Obama intends to "control costs" and otherwise accomplish the goals he says he wants to accomplish. Vague goals are not a "plan". If Obama does not intend to have Federal bureaucrats tell both doctors and insurance companies what they may and may not do (Federal control), exactly HOW does he intend to accomplish those "wonderful" things he claims the Federal Government bureaucrats can accomplish for us (against all experience)?
You will recall about two weeks ago, when President Obama said that AARP was "on board" with his "plan". Time Magazine repeats that assertion above, even to the point of saying that AARP was "on board" EARLY. However, AARP issued a statement after Obama's assertion, saying that AARP had endorsed NO health care plan--a specific denial that it was "on board" with regard to the "Obama health care plan", in specific response to Obma's claim to the contrary.
Who is lying here? Is it Obama, who claimed an "endorsement" he did not have? Is it AARP, whose "leaders" have been all over the media attacking opponents of Federal control of health care? Is it Time Magazine, who has REPEATED Obama's assertion, even after that statement by the AARP? How about all three, which is the correct answer.
President Obama was falsely claiming an endorsement he does not have for a plan that does not exist. The AARP was suggesting that it had not betrayed its members by attacking them all over TV--giving everyone the idea that AARP had been bought off by Obama. Yet, AARP knows very well it has tired to give everyone the impression AARP has endorsed the non-existent "Obama health care plan", when it has not. Time, of course, routinely lies, and has done so again (ignoring the AARP response to the Obama assertion, as if there were not massive deception being practiced all around here).
Note that "many observers" bit in the very first sentence of the Time article. That is "journalist" speak for the mainstream media itself. Of course the mainstream media is "puzzled". They think that the general public--especially seniors--are HICKS who should take their lead from the mainstream media. That is the same attitude that the nation's "elites" in general have, including a significant part of the Republican Party "establishment". That is why there is no "puzzle" here. Would you not be angry if you saw these effete snobs telling you that you did not know what you are talking abut, when you are aware that you know more about the subject than either the mainstream media or a President who seems oblivious to actual facts (as distinguished from soaring rhetoric)? Darn right you would be "angry", and senior citizens are angry that their "supposed" advocates at AARP have turned out to have the same attitude: That seniors are HICKS who need to be guided by the "leadership" of AARP, who regard the members as a mere power base to use to advance their own interests and agenda rather than to be consulted and respected. The AARP "leadership" has exposed itself as totally uncaring about the views of its members, just as members of Congress (and the mainstream media) have exposed themselves as totally uncaring of the views of the public. Yet, on this issue the views of the "angry" public are more informed and correct than the views of the Big Government "elites", and the public is angry that their "leaders" can be both so arrogant and so dumb.
Ask yourself. Has the mainstream media made an effort to explain exactly what powers the new Federal agencies created by a health care "overhaul" wil have? What about the "old" Federal agencies? It is no good saying, as Obama and the mainstream media have attempted to do, what the non-existent "Obama health care plan" will NOT do. What WILL it do? And I don't mean platitudes. What, SPECIFICALLY, will it do? What regulations will Federal bbureaucrats be empowered to issue.? What will Federal bureaucrats have tohe power to determine what MUST be in all health insurance policies? Will Federal bureaucrats have the power to determine what doctors will be paid (like Medicare--see yesterday's entry)? Has AARP shown any interest in what powers Federally agencies will be given under the "Obama health care plan"? Of course not. AARP (the people in charge) has only shown and interest in being PART of the power group who is going to tell everyone else what to do (just like the AMA, members of Congress, Wal-Mart, Big Pharma, and all of the rest being willing to "partner" with the Federal Government to sell out the people).
What did AARP actually do to find out what its members thought? I think the evidence is that they did NOTHING, because they expected the members to have no mind of their own. We know that the AARP has done little to try to force the DETAILS of the "Obama health care plan" to be explained. We further know that AARP "leaders" have been attacking opponents of health care "reform"--which often means attacking their own members--even while issuing statements that AARP has endorsed no "specific plan" (as Obama has proposed none). The Time story makes clear that AARP "leadership" is more interested in placating its members than in really paying attention to what its members believe.
Notice the reference in the quoted paragraph from the Time article to "a year ago". Has anything changed in a year--anything that the people (including seniors) have noticed, and the "elite", arrogant, effete snobs in AARP, the mainstream media, and government do not seem to have noticed? Yep, something has changed.
A year ago the deficit, and accumulated debt, appeared to be a manageable, if concerning, problem. Now our deficit, and our debt, are totally out of control. The Obama Administration just raised the the projected debt level at the end of the next ten years from 7 TRILLION dollars to nine TRILLION dollars. Even that number is probably optimistic. President Obama himself has said that deficits att his level cannot be "sustained", and yet he is now assaying that they WILL be sustained for the next TEN YEARS.
The public, including seniors, realize that--as Obama said--this is intolerable. Even if Federal control of health care and health insurance had any merit, which it does not, we cannot afford to create a new "entitlement" at this time. Medicare is in DANGER (as seniors realize). Social Security is in DANGER. These deficits, and accumulated debt, make it probable (not merely possible) that we cannot give senior citizens what they have already been promised. The Obama "health care plan" (whatever it is) will be merely another nail in that coffin, and senior citizens realize it. Any "savings", and any additional revenue, need to be applied to save what we now have. Time, the rest of the mainstream media, Congress, and AARP do not seem to realize that there is NO money for the "Obama health care plan". New taxes, "savings", etc. do NOT create "money" to "pay for" a new health care plan. We have already SPENT all of that money, and much more. We are not "paying for" a health care plan when we are building a 9 TRILLION dollar debt over the next ten years (without a health care plan that will certainly add to that intolerable debt).
That is the biggest LIE of all: that ANY government program is being "paid for" when we are spending our way--with money we dont have--accumulated deficits over the next ten years of 9 TRILLION dollars. The public understands this. Our "elites" do not. I would rather be a HICK. Hicks are obviously smarter.
P.S. Yes, I am basically a "senior citizen"--62 years old. I long ago abandoned AARP which I understood that it was a Big Government organization more interested in the power of its leaders than in the real interests of its members
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)