Nothin’ like throwin’ a little mud on the liberals. For all the years of adoration toward the Kennedy administration, Camelot and the popular fascination with such American icons one thing seems certain. No matter how good some works are in politics there always seems to be a downside. That which can cause one to shake their head in disappointment.
McCain along with Bush, Kennedy and others tried to pass shamnesty in 2007 yet Jan Brewer as well as some others support McCain. It is situations like this that make it hard to believe people are serious about opposing illegal immigration and shamnesty. In this case, perhaps Brewer does it because McCain is establishment GOP and she will need them to survive politically. She gets to do the dirty work on illegal immigration and in return for allowing the GOP to side step the issue gets their support for her career.
Obama says he made a mistake on immigration when he took Napolitano for Homeland Security. It opened the door for then Secretary of State Jan Brewer to become governor of Arizona. Napolitano had opposed any legislation like SB 1070 and Brewer signed it into law.
Brewer first threw her support to McCain in February. SB 1070 was passed and signed in April.
As suspected, the Obama/Brewer sit down appears to have accomplished little. They may whithhold significant details but there is nothing to suggest either person blinked or that anything substantial is in the works.
It would be entertaining if it wasn’t so serious. First of all, make no mistake, there is rhetoric everywhere. Political rhetoric is a familiar tool. Everyone uses it. And those opposed to any such rhetoric typically submit a rebuttal. The following is an example.
This blog offers a rebuttal to those who characterize any criticism of Obamacare as somehow sponsored by the GOP or otherwise supported or connected to the Republican party.
The Democratic party has been in the majority throughout the so-called health reform debate that has now lasted, in its current form, for more than a year. The Democrats raised the issue. President Obama has placed it as his top priority. The entire issue was brought forward by the Democratic party. And few would argue against the fact it has been a liberal cause for decades. No need to repeat a description of the Ted Kennedy saga or the fallacy that current health reform proposals are in any way relevant to frequent references about Theodore Roosevelt’s efforts on behalf of public health issues.
Democrats currently own this issue and any results that occur because of it. The GOP has been effectively shut out of the process as shown by the massive number of amendments they offered compared to the few that have not been rejected by the majority. Even some Democrats opposed to this reform have had their ‘yes’ votes paid for by special deals. And there is not one poll available during the entire debate to indicate adequate public support for the Democratic party’s health reform legislation.
Connecting opposition to current healthcare reform exclusively as a function of the GOP is absurd. While the GOP opposition certainly has a political component the same cannot be said for the majority of Americans opposed to the Democratic party’s healthcare reform legislation.
Just because a majority of Americans oppose the Democratic party’s healthcare reform legislation does not make them Republicans. And the fact that this blog is presenting content in this post from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is not an endorsement of the GOP. But it does demonstrate something about the loyal opposition to Obamacare. Most Americans oppose Obamacare and that includes the GOP and this blog. Although it is fair to say each opponent may have their own reasons for opposing Obamacare.
The point is Obamacare is opposed by most Americans. And the Democratic party majority is forcing it upon citizens anyway. That’s the issue.
Here’s the Mitch McConnell content……
and the text version……
WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday regarding the health care bill:
“The administration and some in Congress would like to think this debate is over.
“They want the American people to sit down and quiet down.
“That’s been their approach to health care for an entire year.
“Well, Republicans think Congress serves the people, not the other way around.
“So we’ve fought on behalf of the American people this week — and we’ll continue to fight until this bill is repealed and replaced with common-sense ideas that solve our problems without dismantling the health care system we have and without burying the American Dream under a mountain of debt.
“That’s what we’ve been doing all week here in the Senate.
“While Democrat lawmakers and staffers threw a party for themselves at the White House yesterday, Republicans were here at the Capitol fighting a 150-page postscript that Democrats added on at the last minute to the health care bill.
“This add-on bill took a terrible health spending bill and made it even worse.
“If you thought the tax hikes in the original bill were bad, this bill raised them even higher. If you thought the Medicare cuts were bad, this bill made them deeper. If you thought the first bill cost too much, this bill made it even more expensive.
“If you didn’t like the special deals in the first bill, they slipped more into this one.
“The whole thing was one last slap in the face of Americans across the country who’ve been howling at Democrats for the past year to stop this bill and to work instead across party lines on reforms that would actually drive costs down.
“So today, Republicans will give Democrats one last chance to reject the horrible impact the underlying bill and this last-minute add-on will have on our country.
“Unfortunately, we already know that they plan to turn the other way.
“We’ll offer an amendment to direct the Medicare cuts in this bill back into Medicare, to preserve and strengthen it for future generations. They’ll reject it.
“We’ll offer an amendment to strike all the new sweetheart deals in this bill. They’ll reject it.
“We’ll offer an amendment that would have obliged the President to keep his pledge that families earning under $250,000 won’t see any tax hikes as a result of this bill. They plan to reject it.
“We’ll offer an amendment requiring HHS to certify that this bill doesn’t increase premiums. They’ll reject it.
“We’ll offer an amendment to strike a job-killing mandate on businesses. They’ll reject it.
“So while the White House is trying to sell this health spending bill to a skeptical public — Senate Democrats today will speak loudly and clearly about the things in this bill the White House doesn’t want people to know — and vote to endorse them:
* Massive cuts to Medicare for seniors
* Job killing mandates and small business tax hikes
* Higher insurance premiums
* Sweetheart deals
* Tax hikes on middle class families
“This is the real story of health care reform.
“Americans may not be hearing about it from the White House, but I assure you they’ll be feeling the pain. Americans know this, and they want to know that someone’s fighting for them in Washington, to make their voices heard.
“That’s what Republicans have been doing on this issue for the past year. That’s what we’ve been doing this week. That’s what we’re doing tonight.
“And that’s what we’ll keep doing until those voices are heard.
Whether the special election in Taxachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s vacant seat is about broader issues or simply political math for healthcare reform the piece above from the Boston Herald touts the liberal spin and perhaps unknowingly makes an argument against it.
Conceding the ability to produce a ‘perfect’ bill right now but fixing it later is how we get into problems with entitlements. Three quarters of the budget in recent years and probably longer is spending on entitlements. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable. This is what the liberal agenda has given us since FDR.
It’s natural that citizens who did not voluntarily contribute to these programs through payroll deductions expect to receive the benefits after a lifetime of paying for them. There in lies the rub. The liberal agenda is patient. They try to convince the public their agenda is in the public interest. Over time the cost goes up and the benefits go down but the government gets bigger and the political power is secure. Too bad the same cannot be said for your future or that of your children.
‘Like we fixed every major piece of legislation ever passed.’ Does it really seem to you right now that anyone EVER fixed entitlements? Touching the third rail of politics causes political suicide. So all POLS can muster is ignoring the problems all together or continuing to raise taxes and reduce benefits to pay for programs that are simply not feasible.
Martha Coakley would tow the party line abusing majority status to heap more liabilities on American taxpayers in the name of reform. At least Scott Brown offers a chance to correct the problems and pursue reasoned solutions to critical issues. We cannot continue to spend money we don’t have. That is part of what caused the issues we face now…. spending what we don’t have.
What’s the single largest problem with passing healthcare reform in one of its current versions or proposals in Congress? The funding of currently proposed legislation for healthcare reform starts almost immediately if passed. Whether you can keep your current coverage may begin to change in as little as one year. But the reform part, good, bad or ugly does not begin until 2014.
Start paying for reform as soon as any legislation passes but wait for any perceived benefit for four years. The most troubling issue with that condition is Congress can continue to alter the game after initial passage and make ‘reform’ worse than it is right now as the public loses interest over time. If you review most legislation that moves through Congress that is what it does, alters previous legislation.
So your chances for any benefit from what proponents call reform starts with pay for no play and diminishes from there. Opponents of healthcare reform point to higher taxes, higher premiums and less choice on medical care. If they’re right, regardless of your opinion of reform, you stand to lose immediately by paying for what reform covers with no chance to benefit for at least four years. And your chances beyond that period of time are small.
So even if you live in Nebraska or Louisiana where Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) sold their yes votes on healthcare reform for Medicaid deals for their respective states, you lose. And even residents of those two states stand to lose over time regardless of initial perks for selling their votes. Another member of Congress, Rep Joseph Cao (R-LA) from the 2nd district sold his vote for healthcare on the mere promise from President Obama that he would help him with healthcare issues. Well, that’s the public version of what happened.
For something of a reality check on healthcare reform and its politics here is an excerpt and link to Kimberly A. Strassel’s take on the situation.
The Dems were giddy in a news confernence this week on their healthcare scam. The GOP is giddy about their chances in 2010. Pundit claims are all over the map. But all POLS should be concerned about what would make American citizens giddy. Those who do may actually win in the next election cycle. Scott Brown is hopefully one of those who will win.
As the piece below explains with some authority even sources in the MSM are taking notice and perhaps offering some reasonable coverage on the topic. (don’t get excited yet)
Taxachusetts is a blue state no doubt. The Kennedy clan has dominated the political machine there for years as the letter to the editor below points out. But maybe not all residents are dyed-in-the-wool liberals. And even some on the left may see value in Scott Brown winning the special election to fill the vacancy left by the passing of Ted Kennedy.
The majority of the MSM attention to this special election focused on endorsements for Martha Coakley of course featuring that of Vicki Kennedy. But it may be the other endorsements that Coakley has received that should bothersome? Or do liberals in the blue state of MA support the corruption of ACORN as well?
Two shining examples of elected Representatives in the House allowing their votes to be bought for so-called health reform are Bart Stupak and Joseph Cao. A pair in the Senate likewise demonstrate the 60 vote fraud that is the Democratic party’s reform, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson.
After a brief review of manager’s amendment of Senate Majority Leader and vote buyer (with your money) Harry Reid a search of the vague and openended legislative item produced 19 references to abortion. From instances of where federal funding is prohibited for abortions to where it is allowed and various provisions demonstrating differences between federal and state wiggle room on the topic Reid’s back room deals are a masterpiece of arrogance and ignoring public opposition to this bill.
One might not expect provisions regarding firearms possession and similar items within a bill on health reform but that merely emphasizes the culture of corruption in Washington and a common description in most legislation allowing ‘and for other purposes’ to cover any deal POLS make.
Here are a few less contentious references to the Harry Reid manager’s amendment.
There are arrangements for using an arbitrary percentage to determine among other things rebates to premium payers under certain circumstances.
from the amendment….
In determining the percentages under paragraph (1), a State shall seek to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers, competition in the health insurance market in the State, and value for consumers so that premiums are used for clinical services and quality improvements.
‘‘(3) ENFORCEMENT.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations for enforcing the provisions of this section and may provide for appropriate penalties.
Sure, the public sector, aka, your government will ’seek to ensure’ participation, competition and value for the consumer in a role in which it has never succeeded. But you can bet they will come up with penalties. After all, what a better way to raise more revenue from the private sector to waste on more governmet interference. It’s like you paying a thief to rob you.
On the issue of more bureaucracy and more waste comes another
‘‘(d) MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT DATA CENTERS.— ‘‘(1) FUNCTIONS.—A center established under
subsection (c)(1)(C) shall— ‘‘(A) develop fee schedules and other database tools that fairly and accurately reflect market rates for medical services and the geographic differences in those rates;
The devil’s in the details…..
‘‘(B) use the best available statistical methods and data processing technology to develop such fee schedules and other database tools; ‘‘(C) regularly update such fee schedules and other database tools to reflect changes in charges for medical services;
‘‘(D) make health care cost information readily available to the public through an Internet website that allows consumers to understand the amounts that health care providers in their area charge for particular medical services; and ‘‘(E) regularly publish information concerning the statistical methodologies used by the center to analyze health charge data and make such data available to researchers and policy makers.
‘‘(2) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—A center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) shall adopt by laws that ensures that the center (and all members of the governing board of the center) is independent and free from all conflicts of interest. Such bylaws shall ensure that the center is not controlled or influenced by, and does not have any corporate relation to, any individual or entity that may make or receive payments for health care services based on the center’s analysis of health care costs.
‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit a center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) to compel health insurance issuers to provide data to the center.’’.
And one tiny example of how YOUR government will raise costs not only on established transactions but new ones.
‘‘(e) STANDARD HOSPITAL CHARGES.—Each hospital operating within the United States shall for each year establish (and update) and make public (in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services provided
by the hospital, including for diagnosisrelated groups established under section 886(d)(4) of the Social Security Act.’’.
And that is after less than an hour reviewing Harry Reid’s manager’s amendment. Which brings to mind the often stated criticism that few if any in Congress have read the bill or anything related to it. Yet they are content to pass it with sixty liberal Senate votes. You have to ask yourself why?
It’s all about money and power and has nothing to do with reform of anything.
Much has been made of Senator Ben Nelson ‘holding up’ the Dems on passing scam health reform. Could it be that Senator Nelson simply wants stuff for his vote? Is this any different than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid buying Senator Mary Landrieu’s vote or Obama buying Cao’s vote? That includes the bogus Stupak Amendment in the House. So what does Senator Ben Nelson say in his own press release on the topic?
That’s right! With each successive change in presidential administration in the US the abortion tennis match continues. When a Republican occupies the White House the Mexico City Policy is reinstated. When a Democrat occupies the White House it is rescinded. So where’s your concern about that Mr Nelson?
Another item related to the never ending abortion debate is the Hyde Amendment. It captures the conservative compromise on the topic. Agreeing to certain limited uses of abortion for circumstances that do not demonstrate abortion’s usage as contraception for dummies.
reference to The Hyde Amendment…..
H.AMDT.185 (A008)
Amends: H.R.2518
Sponsor: Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] (offered 6/30/1993)AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to prohibit the use of any funds appropriated in the bill for any abortion except, when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
POPULAR TITLE(S):
Hyde Amendment (identified by CRS)
STATUS:
6/30/1993 3:00pm:
Amendment (A008) offered by Mr. Hyde.
6/30/1993 3:26pm:
On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by recorded vote: 255 - 178 (Roll no. 307).
6/30/1993 3:28pm:
Mr. Armey demanded a separate vote on the Hyde amendment (A008).
6/30/1993 4:00pm:
On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 256 - 171 (Roll no. 309).
And even though one could make a reasonable argument in support of the Hyde Amendment there are othe equally reasonable arguments to the contrary. Meaning those who face the above challenges still have other choices albeit problematic ones.
If you are not motivated to pour over thousands of pages of legislation to determine for yourself how healthcare reform will affect you here’s an alternative. On October 29, 2009 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi unveiled the latest bill aimed at passage in the House of Representatives in order to pursue President Obama’s political agenda. Her announcement reflected in a press release available on her website provides insight into an impossible dream.
According to Pelosi……
“This is why this legislation is important: affordability for our middle-class that lower costs for every patient, reins in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, limits out of pocket costs, and lifts the cap on what insurance companies cover each year.
Translation::
Every item in the quote above suggests the cost to the patient for healthcare will be reduced or limited from whatever it is now. If the patient is not going to pay the increasing costs for their own healthcare, who will? You might want the answer to that question. And even if you believe the insurance companies are the villains as the liberals suggest, you cannot be so naive as to think there are no legitimate costs to providing healthcare insurance. And those costs are rising.
If you do nothing to lower the actual cost of providing healthcare how do you lower the cost to the patient? You get someone else to pay it for them. And that may include the patient themselves in terms of new taxes on their income, etc. In addition, if you expect the insurance company to absorb the increasing costs of healthcare with no mechanism for actually lowering the costs, they will go out of business.
Another claim by Pelosi…..
“That said, the bill is fiscally sound. It will not add one dime to the deficit as it expands coverage, implements key insurance reforms, and promotes prevention and wellness across the health system. The bill will expand coverage, including a public option to boost choice and competition in the health insurance reform.
Translation:
The key here is Pelosi claims it will ‘expand coverage’ and yet magically ‘not add one dime to the deficit’. So the Speaker claims costs will be reduced for patients and coverage will be expanded yet there will be no increase in the deficit. You have to ask yourself how that is possible? She says reform will ‘rein in premiums, co-pays and deductibles’. Out of pocket expenses will be lowered and insurance coverage will be expanded. How does she do that without someone else to pay for it? The math does not work. And don’t think for a minute that the wealthy in this country can cover the entire tab for what the liberals propose.
And yet another claim by Pelosi…..
“Good morning. It is with great pride and with great humility that we come before you to follow in the footsteps of those who gave our country Social Security and then Medicare, and now universal, quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
This may be the only true statement in the Speaker’s press release. Remember how Congress dealt with Social Security and Medicare in terms of the budget. Sometimes it was on the budget. And sometimes it was off budget. The reason was its drag on government accounting. As the baby boom grew the population and the ratio of those paying for benefits versus those receiving benefits headed toward insolvency. Deficits were hidden by taking the costs off budget.
What? You thought Nancy could make the costs go away by waving her magic wand?
As the healthcare debate drags on more questions are raised than answered. Perhaps good news for drug companies and bad news for the insurance industry. The partisan bill and vote in the Senate Finance Committee last week may lead to a rewrite this week. The last estimate on the cost of the bill was over $800 billion. And about the only sure thing is that it will cost taxpayers more money. Covering uninsured with tax credits and expanding Medicaid will raise tax bills for the rest of us.
If mandates from Congress force insurers to payout more claims with lower premiums anyone’s math should arrive at the obvious conclusion. Politicians will dictate who wins and who loses yet they have the audacity syndrome to label insurance companies as the villains. Simply because they oppose the idea of losses created by Congress.
One self-proclaimed winner from so-called healthcare reform is from David Snow of Medco Health Solutions, Inc. You may find it interesting to follow the Merck spinoff history of this company. There are those who would say the history of Merck and Medco Health Solutions produced a dark cloud in the trustworthy department. That may raise more issues about the winners and losers in reform.
The ten year eighty billion dollar plan between the White House and Big Pharma is as suspect as the Obama Administration’s claim that the insurance industry opposition to reform is ’smoke and mirrors’. The White House should use those mirrors to check their own claims in the debate.
Read the WSJ piece referenced below to arm yourself with more information for the battle in the weeks ahead. And if you think it is alright for insurers to get beat down by politicians with healthcare reform stop to think who else stands to lose. That might be another job for one of those mirrors mentioned earlier.
The idea that a Senate version of BaucusCare would save 80 some billion dollars over ten years was laughable. And this is less. So that would make it more laughable.
How does this news boost ‘backers of lawsuit reform’? Sure, you could make the case that a five percent savings here and a five percent savings there could add up to serious money. The nagging problem is the estimates provided by the CBO are understandably based on the information they are given at the time. So every time the proposals change so does the estimate. And as we all know, or should know, any legislation involving money coming out of Congress is subject to change. And that change typically includes the buyer’s remorse year’s later. Why, the costs always exceed the forecasts or estimates. It is not unusual for those cost overruns to exceed 8 to 10 times of the original proposals.
The highest ten year cost estimates typically associated with healthcare reform are around a trillion dollars and some have reached as high as $2 trillion. BaucusCare came in recently at around $800 billion. To make it easier, assume a ten year cost of one trillion dollars.or 100 billion per year. The 54 billion dollar ten year tort reform savings would be 5.4 billion per year. That is about five percent per year not one-half of one percent.
The point is, if you have a five or ten percent savings overall with one or two aspects of healthcare reform it does little to reduce costs. Find eight or ten of these five percent savings and you’re talking serious improvements. The problem is finding them and keeping them effective over the life of the legislation. The amount by which tax increases and lmited options for consumers would change as reality hits reform over time would surely cancel any current estimates of benefit.
Sorry folks, both GOP and Dems will not be able to make this thing work. The best they can do is keep their hands off healthcare.
Time to ratchet up contact to your elected reps. As the healthcare reform saga continues in the nation’s capital those in the majority confirm the loyal opposition is not the party of ‘no’ but the only ones trying to eliminate insane portions of current proposals in Congress.
There you go. Taxpayer funding of abortions and opening the door wider for illegals to obtain more healthcare services meaning billions of public funds will extend benefits to those who are citizens of a country other than the United States. This improves healthcare for Americans how?
Harry Reid and company have the task of reconciling two Senate committee bills before they reach the Senate floor next week. How is that going to happen based on the markup process that has been the longest in fifteen years? Rather than proposing legislation that would benefit Americans across the board there is a mix of takeaways and givebacks to accommodate the political agendas of various politicians. There is no way this so-called reform will improve healthcare in the United States. But it will raise taxes.
The only certain outcome of liberal healthcare reform is more taxes and less control for individuals over their healthcare decisions. Each version proposed in Congress has come with a slightly lower estimate on costs over the life of the legislation. Based on previous experience with government forecasts for government programs with the possible exception of the CBO indicate the actual costs will exceed any current estimates. The CBO can only predict based on information available at the time and since the various versions change on an almost daily basis that task is made nearly impossible. You can be sure it will cost more than anyone will tell you now.
More taxes, spending, deficits and national debt totals that will only benefit those not paying the bills as well as forcing taxpayers to cover the cost of many items that they oppose. There is simply no benefit to current healthcare reform proposals except for those making them. It’s a political power grab and a dangerous game to play given mounting debt and financial uncertainty. The money to pay for it does not come out of the sky but the pockets of Americans who simply cannot afford more expense during a recession. Nor can they afford to pass this debt on to their children and grandchildren. Especially when those future generations will likely gain nothing from the massive expense.
Below are three reactions on Paul Kirk replacing the late Ted Kennedy in the US Senate until a January special election takes place. Following the three expected sentiments from the President, Senate Majority Leader and House Speaker is a more enlightening analysis of one, Paul Kirk.
Statement by The President on The Appointment of Paul Kirk as US Senator From Massachusetts
“I am pleased that Massachusetts will have its full representation in the United States Senate in the coming months, as important issues such as health care, financial reform and energy will be debated. Paul Kirk is a distinguished leader, whose long collaboration with Senator Kennedy makes him an excellent, interim choice to carry on his work until the voters make their choice in January.”
Reid Reaction To Interim Appointment Of Paul Kirk To Vacant Massachusetts Senate Seat
Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released the following statement upon the news that Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has designated Paul Kirk as the interim successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy:
“Ted Kennedy’s impact will endure for the life of this body and his values will continue to serve as a guiding principle for those of us who served with him. But as Senator Kennedy would say, ‘the work goes on,’ and today’s news of Paul Kirk’s appointment ensures that the commonwealth of Massachusetts will have an effective advocate as they await the results of the special election in January.
“As a former staffer and associate of Sen. Kennedy and member of the board of directors for the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, Paul Kirk embodies the values of Sen. Kennedy. He also has a long-standing appreciation of the issues that matter to the great people of Massachusetts. I look forward to welcoming Mr. Kirk as he works with Sen. Kerry to represent Massachusetts in the Senate.
“Governor Patrick made a wise, thoughtful choice by naming Paul Kirk as an interim successor to Sen. Kennedy. I also appreciate the diligent work of the Massachusetts Senate and House leadership for understanding the importance of securing full representation for Massachusetts in the United States Senate.”
Pelosi Statement on Appointment of Paul Kirk to Vacant Massachusetts Senate Seat
Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement after Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts announced that he has appointed Paul Kirk as the interim successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy:
“Paul Kirk will be a voice of reason and passion in the United States Senate. His belief in public service and commitment to the causes of social justice, equality, and opportunity for every American make him an outstanding choice to carry on the torch of Senator Ted Kennedy.
“Paul Kirk will be an effective advocate for the people of Massachusetts, and I look forward to welcoming him to Congress and working with him to advance the cause of health care for all, energy independence, and economic growth in the coming months.”
You really should read the rest of this piece. Click on the highlighted text above to go to the full story.
It is still a time where we need to voice public opposition to the corruption in our nation’s capital. More events like 912dc and the tea parties across the country are the order of the day. Paul Kirk is one more special interest lobbyist that the Messiah in Chief claimed would be a thing of the past. It is another vindication for Joe Wilson’s phrase ‘you lie’. Lies are all that appear to be coming out of Washington DC.
How can so-called healthcare reform legislation be anything but corrupt when corruption is all that is producing it?
At the very least, contact your elected reps and express your disatisfaction including advance notice of your vote against them in 2010.
A former aide to Senator Max Baucus and current acting-Director at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Jonathan Blum, has complied with a request by his former boss to investigate insurance companies. President Obama appointed Jonathan Blum and it appears he is faithfully silencing opposition to the Baucus efforts to produce a Senate version of the failing House healthcare reform package.
What’s the big deal you ask? The House version of healthcare reform is a disaster. Congress had thought they could go to the August recess to gain support for government-run healthcare in their home districts.
If you haven’t read the version of America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 currently available and the Chairman’s mark, etc., a subsequent post on this blog will address that topic. And if you believe that health ‘insurance’ reform in Congress will be a good thing you qualify as ’sheeple’. There is nothing about this episode in government-run reform that will be any better than the failures in the past…. those rejected or those that became law.
The Democrats and other liberals, not the least of which is President Obama, want government-run healthcare. The rhetoric from liberals will describe it differently but that is politics. Not much different from the shell game players can never win. Tell the public nirvana is under one of the shells and take their money. When the public complains they have been taken, offer them another chance to pick the winning shell.
The House bill HR 3200 was the first chance at picking the winning shell. An outrageous shell game that met with public anger. Enter the Senate. If the public was not happy with that shell game outcome offer them another one. Republicans opposed the House bill. As evidenced by the August recess town halls and tea parties plus the 912 march on Washington there was much public outrage over this and other government meddling. American business was not pleased by this turn of events either. Then comes this report.
How can this be you say? Let’s not forget that business is populated by, go figure, humans. That may come as a surprise to some but it is true. And business people can pander just like every one else. You’ve heard of special interest? Everyone is a special interest. They have their own special interest at heart. That is the problem. That is why we have a debate on healthcare.
Everyone has their own way of doing things and wants to continue that trend. The problem is if we keep doing things the same way we cannot expect a different outcome. Some credit that sentiment to Albert Einstein and some to Barack Obama. But it is a reasonable statement. The problem with those who favor more government intervention especially in healthcare refuse to change their ways.
Apparently Mr Olivo doesn’t pay attention to politics. Mr Olivo, the GOP is not allowed at the table. When you have a Democratic party majority in Congress and a Democrat in the White House bipartisanship is code for acquiesce. The Dems will only allow consent from the GOP. Any opposition to the liberal healthcare plan will be squashed. Even some Dems are opposed to the plans. There are reports indicating Dems leadership has demanded other Dems who oppose the plan to comply or else and ‘reconciliation’ is the budget tactic that will be used to enforce compliance or ignore opposition.
If the business community is caving to the liberal takeover of healthcare they are just as guilty as anyone else who is pandering for a handout in healthcare. And all handouts are paid courtesy of the American taxpayer. In all likelihood if the business community caves on government-run healthcare they will do nothing to effect lowering costs and will suffer higher taxes. Not a smart business move.
Apparently some in the ‘business world’ have found a shell they are willing to bet on. Of course they forget odds are with the house in these matters. Biz will lose over the long term. It never fails when one gambles.
At least some businesses are still thinking and not quite pandering.
And if you think the Big Pharma deal the White House applauded earlier this year was some sort of endorsement by big business think again. Just like the K Strett money flowing to both parties it is hedging one’s bets. Big Pharma’s deal was no deal at all. $8 billion over ten years was a payment to continue sitting at the table not unlike campaign contributions. Compare the size.
Big Pharma’s 625 Washington Lobbyists In addition to an army of lobbyists Big Pharma spends an amount equal or greater than that proposed in their Obama deal. Ten years ago they spent over $500 million for related causes during one year alone. So $8 billion over ten years is not a departure from the norm.
Everyone talks of shared sacrifice. It is in the report referenced for this post. It is in Obama speeches. It is in just about everyone’s talking points. The problem is it is not in their actions. Until that happens no government-run healthcare meddling will solve anything but the liberal wet dream. If we keep doing as we have with our use of healthcare and how we provide it, nothing will change. Not even with the proposals hiding under those little shells.
The file on the mob plot began with the informant’s disclosures to the FBI’s Milwaukee office. The FBI added an unsigned statement that said a multimillionaire Manhattan divorcée knew about the orgies.
“It’s interesting. Sen. McCain, of course, has represented the state of Arizona for a long time. And J.D. Hayworth has served in Congress for eight years,” the governor said.
It’s natural that citizens who did not voluntarily contribute to these programs through payroll deductions expect to receive the benefits after a lifetime of paying for them. There in lies the rub. The liberal agenda is patient. They try to convince the public their agenda is in the public interest. Over time the cost goes up and the benefits go down but the government gets bigger and the political power is secure. Too bad the same cannot be said for your future or that of your children.
According to Pelosi……
As the healthcare debate drags on more questions are raised than answered. Perhaps good news for drug companies and bad news for the insurance industry. The partisan bill and vote in the Senate Finance Committee last week may lead to a rewrite this week. The last estimate on the cost of the bill was over $800 billion. And about the only sure thing is that it will cost taxpayers more money. Covering uninsured with tax credits and expanding Medicaid will raise tax bills for the rest of us.
A former aide to Senator Max Baucus and current acting-Director at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Jonathan Blum, has complied with a request by his former boss to investigate insurance companies. President Obama appointed Jonathan Blum and it appears he is faithfully silencing opposition to the Baucus efforts to produce a Senate version of the failing House healthcare reform package.