Quickie: What? Stimulus Job Results Have Been Exaggerated? No, I don’t Believe That!

Yep, it’s true.

I know all of you are floored right now.

Quickie: Liar!

It seems like there’s more to the Health Care proposal that House Speaker Pelosi is currently endorsing. Buried in the 2,032-page behemoth, there’s a clause that states abortions will be paid for by the government.

Where will this money come from?

Anyone that is enrolled in the program, that’s who. And with the potential danger a government-sponsored insurance entity poses to insurance companies, you may be one of those people paying for abortions.

Here’s the interesting text from John Boehner’s website:

On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

This revelation flies in the face of everything we’ve been told about abortion and it’s relation to a government funded insurance option.

If they have lied about this, what else are they lying about? Perhaps Death Panels?

Let’s Remember Who the Enemy Really Is.

We are rapidly approaching the first anniversary of the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States, an event that was supposed to usher in a new era of politics in American. Gone are the days of partisan bickering, unilateral decisions and bitter disagreements, here to stay are understandings, compromises and agreements we were told back on that November day.

If you ask me, the rhetoric hasn’t matched the reality of the situation. Instead of fences being mended, more walls of division have been thrown up and fingers pointed at fellow Americans than ever before.

President Obama, with the aide of his Democratic cohorts in Congress, has spent the majority of his first year in office demonizing groups of Americans through words, actions and legislation. Say what you want about President Bush, but he never singled out fellow, law-abiding Americans like this.

In the past year, the following groups have been blamed for the country’s shortcomings or become enemies of the Obama administration and the Left:

· Crude oil speculators for merely doing their jobs of forecasting the future price of oil.

· AIG employees for having the gall to actually accept and adhere to a contract that the government agreed to and receive compensation for services rendered.

· CIA officials that followed their orders handed down by the chain of command and worked tirelessly to keep us safe from another terrorist attack or attacks.

· Las Vegas for being an enjoyable and accommodating host for professional conventions.

· The “stupid” police officers from Cambridge that performed their due diligence by arresting a suspicious man that appeared to be breaking into someone else’s home.

· Tobacco companies for producing a product that millions of consumers want.

· Smokers for having the nerve to smoke that product.

· Wal-Mart for not welcoming unions, despite offering benefits and above average pay to their employees.

· Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk radio hosts and Fox News for having opinions contrary to those of the Left.

· Soda and juice companies for making beverages that some in Congress deem “unhealthy”.

· Healthcare providers and insurance companies for acting “immoral” by simply turning a profit.

· Individuals that are skeptical of Obama’s healthcare goals or those that attended the tea parties. After all, we’re all just a bunch of racists.

This is troubling to me on multiple levels. After all, shouldn’t the President of the United States be the biggest cheerleader for Americans, rather than a judgmental nag?

First, what right do the President or Democratic leaders have to make these Americans’ lives miserable? Using their bully pulpit to label these people pariahs for having the nerve to actually disagree with their policies or make lifestyle choices that conflict with their’s is small, bitter, pathetic and extremely unbecoming of elected officials.

Second, and more importantly, this is not the time to be pitting Americans against each other. While it is never acceptable to do that, the fact that we are at war makes it especially inappropriate. And this is not just any kind of war; this is a unique war that is not defined by political stances or the desire to obtain land. This is an existential war about our culture, our lifestyle and who we are as a people. It is the Western Civilization versus a group of Islamo-fascist cowards that want to rule the world with their barbaric and berserk culture and end our way of life, as we know it.

When we are faced with this type of enemy, this type of threat, it is vital that we not look at our neighbors as enemies just because they have different political ideologies. If we continue to do that, our real enemies will spot those cracks and exploit them.

So to you Mr. President and Democratic leaders, I implore you to please keep your eyes on the real enemies, as they’re not the Americans that disagree with you.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

The Awful Truth about Healthcare Reform: Part 3-The Costs.

As you know, I have already discussed how your coverage will change and how the level of care will drop if President Obama and congressional Democrats get their way and overhaul the nation’s healthcare system. Today, I’m discussing how much this substandard care will cost.

To put it mildly, the costs are absolutely gargantuan.

Ok, maybe that was not mildly, but it’s really the truth.

The overall price tag for this healthcare overhaul will be anywhere from $1.6-1.8 trillion over ten years.

I’ll pause so you can let that sink in a little.

As you think about that, please keep in mind that these are merely estimates and it could end up being far more expansive than just that. In fact, the Health Systems Innovations Network (a healthcare consulting firm) estimated the costs at a jaw-dropping $3.5 trillion over ten years.

Now, President Obama has assured us that any healthcare plan will not add to the deficit, but really, how is that possible? I mean, if members of Congress were so good at figuring out the healthcare industry, reducing costs and improving care, then what are they doing in Washington? Why aren’t they working for major hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, large healthcare providers, etc. with this keen insight into the medical industry they possess?

The truth is is that they do not possess any insight into the medical industry and they will not be able to control costs.

So the question is; how are we going to pay for this?

Well, that’s easy…higher taxes!

Yes, in order to pay for this massive healthcare overhaul, President Obama will need to go back on his promise of not raising taxes on 95% of Americans. Well, he will have to go back on his word again as he already has increased taxes on millions of Americans that smoke with higher cigarette taxes…and let’s not forget about “Cap and Trade” wither.

You can already see that they’re sending out trial balloons regarding middle class tax hikes. Treasury Secretary Geithner brought up the possibility of increasing the tax burden of the middle class on ABC’s This Week. While the White House quickly distanced themselves from Geithner’s position, it was clearly gauging the response to such a plan.

These taxes would be on top of the tax increases levied against the upper class already proposed by the House. The House’s healthcare plan calls for a 1% surtax on adjusted gross income (including capital gains) between $350,000 and $500,000, a 1.5% surtax on income between $500,000-$1 million and a 5.4% surtax on income exceeding $1 million.

This would unfairly shift the paycheck of healthcare reform to the wealthy and small businesses…the two main sources of true economic stimulation in a free market society.

It’s a good thing we’re not in a prolonged economic downturn as a move like this could turn a recession into a depression…oh wait, that’s right…we are in a prolonged economic downturn!

Smart move Congress!

So to briefly recap, President Obama and Congress may very well bankrupt the economy and critically injure it forever in order to change your healthcare coverage so you receive inferior care.

Forgive me if I’m not excited about this brand of change.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

The Awful Truth about Healthcare Reform: Part 2-The Level of Care.

Yesterday, I touched on the likelihood of the average Americans’ insurance coverage changing. And actually, for those of you that do not like your current healthcare options, you may have found yesterday’s post a hopeful and encouraging sign of things to come.

I highly doubt that will be the case today.

Say what you want about the U.S. healthcare system, but no one can fairly question the high level of care available to American citizens.

For decades, the U.S. has been home to the finest hospitals in the world, served as the birthplace of limitless, medical innovation and provided its citizens with healthcare most people around the world could only dream of receiving.

If Obama and the Democrats get their way with healthcare reform, all of this will be a thing of the past.

When you hear liberals describe the virtues of socialized healthcare, you will hear them wax poetic about how wonderful it is to receive “free” healthcare (even though we all know that this is not the case) and how “everyone” has access to a myriad of medical procedures.

One thing they conveniently leave out is the quality of this “free” healthcare. They leave it out for good reason, as any discussion of the quality of socialized medicine should scare the hell out of any rational individual.

“Ration” and “Scarcity” are a couple of words you all should become rather familiar with as the nation’s healthcare discussion continues because medical options are going to be rationed due to the scarcity of healthcare resources.

The Obama administration has already been quite upfront that it is going to try to ration the use of new technology to control costs. Under the guise of "cost effectiveness" policies, the government will issue rules on when new health care treatments can be used. If your situation does not meet bureaucratic guidelines, then the newest test or treatment will not be available to you or your loved ones.

Would you like a sneak preview of this rationing? Take the “virtual colonoscopy”. The virtual colonoscopy is a newer, better version that works faster, is far cheaper and is more comfortable than its predecessor. With colon cancer being the second leading cause of U.S. cancer deaths (and one of the most preventable and treatable), you would think that this procedure would be a godsend for Medicare. Well, it was until budgetary issues arose. Back in May, Medicare (a program that will no doubt mirror the public option Obama is pushing) trustees reported a dramatic shortfall in budgetary resources. As a result, the program’s managers decided to deny payment for the virtual colonoscopy to those on Medicare.

From a budgetary standpoint, this may be the correct move, but from a care standpoint it clearly is not. I realize that those considerations need to be made at times, but it should be the decision of you, your family and your doctor, not the federal government.

Still don’t believe me? Think these are all a bunch of crazy conservative scare tactics?

Fine.

Let’s take a look at some stats from Great Britain and Canada, two nations that have socialized healthcare.

In Great Britain, at any one time, over 500,000 people are waiting to get into a British hospital. 38% of Brits have to wait four months or more for surgery (compared to 5% in the U.S.). British patients also wait months longer than their American counterparts for knee and hip replacement surgery, cataract surgery and radiation treatment. Additionally, cancer patients are regularly denied life saving drugs due to budget shortfalls in Merry Old England.

Even British officials hate their healthcare! The Chairman of the British Medical Association described the British government-controlled healthcare system as “the stifling of innovation by excessive, intrusive audits, the shackling of doctors by prescribing guidelines, referral guidelines and protocols, the suffocation of professional responsibility by target-setting and production line values that leave little room for the professional judgment of individual doctors or the needs of individual patients.”

How about Canada? Want to see a neurologist for a headache? Better sign up now as the wait is six months. Alright, how about an MRI? That’ll be another three and a half months, with a one-month wait for an ultrasound. Gotta go to the emergency room? Better bring your pajamas, as the average wait to get in is 23 hours.

More than 1.5 million Canadians say they cannot find a family doctor (this from a country with five million people less than California). Some towns even have sunk to lotteries to determine who gets to see a doctor. In Canada, 27% of people that have surgery wait four months or more.

Not only will this rationing restrict your access to care, it will also slow the development of new technologies, which need potentially broad new markets to be economically viable. The new technology that gets shelved could be the one that would save your life.

With the government setting prices and dictating what should be developed and for what price, this country will experience a sharp drop in medical breakthroughs. After all, the private sector fuels innovation and experimentation, not the public sector.

Why? It’s simple, profits.

Therefore, we will not only be getting less care, we will be getting outdated care. Would you want 2010 level care in the year 2050? I would wager no more than you would want 1969 level care today.

Columnist Scott Atlas and Nils Wilking from Stockholm's Karolinska Institute explain this point very well. Wilking, an author of a widely reported publication that compares international cancer survivals, recently explained that nearly half the improvement in cancer survival rates in the United States in the 1990s was due to "the introduction of new oncology drugs." He writes: "No country on the globe does as good a job overall as the United States. Thus, the U.S. government should focus on ensuring that all cancer patients receive timely care, rather than radically overhauling the current system."

With all of these innovations and medical miracles, President Obama still sees fit to radically transform our healthcare system, level of care be damned.

Well…I guess that is change, isn’t it? But not too much hope, if you ask me.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

The Awful Truth about Healthcare Reform: Part 1-Your Coverage.

As the healthcare debate in Washington grows in intensity with each passing day, we citizens are left to simply stand by and wait until Congress and the Obama Administration determine the fate of our healthcare. And not just ours either. This reform will dramatically affect the cost and quality of healthcare for every single American citizen that will live in this country from now until the end of time.

Before we get into the nitty-gritty of the plan, I just want to point out a couple of things for you to note when you hear President Obama or members of Congress talk about healthcare in this country. You will hear this phrase, or a close facsimile of it, uttered repeatedly…

“45 million people in America are without healthcare.”

In those eight little words there is one blatant lie and three other, clever misdirections.

First, the misdirections.

“45 million people in America”. Notice anything about statement? Note that it doesn’t say “45 million Americans”; it says “45 million people in America”. That’s because illegal immigrants are included in that estimate! A sneaky and terribly underhanded approach to presenting healthcare figures.

The statement also implies that there are currently 45 million people in this country without healthcare coverage. Another fabrication. People that have been without insurance at any time over the past year are included in that estimate. So if you switched jobs and had a two-week lapse in medical coverage, you’re in that 45 million estimate.

Thirdly, this statement implies that the people that do not have health insurance want health insurance. That is clearly not always the case. A large number of wealthy people forgo health insurance because they can afford to pay for procedures or doctor visits as they come up. Another group of people that opt not to have insurance is young workers, especially those in the 18-24 age group. They see the amount of money that goes towards healthcare coming out of their checks on a weekly basis and, due to economic reasons; they decide that that money is needed for other parts of their budget.

And what if you are in the group of people that for whatever reason choose not to have health insurance? Well if you file a tax return, you have to have it under Senator Kennedy’s plan. If you don’t, the IRS and a newly expanded federal office on electronic medical records will find you and fine you.

How much? No one knows for sure as it will be determined by the secretary of health and human services. It will be enough, however, to persuade you to join the program.

Now for the big lie. Can you find it in the statement?

It’s claiming 45 million people in this country do not have healthcare.

Everyone has healthcare. For example, if you are uninsured and get into a car accident, by law, you will be cared for. Yet this comment makes it seem that 45 million people do not have access to any medical care. This is just another subtle way of making our current healthcare system seem in worse shape than it really is and therefore making the public option more attractive.

So what about this public option that we keep hearing so much about? Democrats claim that it will not only allow you to keep your current coverage if you like it, but it will also bring honesty to the insurance industry.

Both are false.

Sure, you can keep your current insurance plan…for now. What do you think is going to happen when the governmental behemoth that is the public option enters the market? It’s going to crowd out a vast number of smaller carriers as they will not be able to compete with the public option.

And really, how could they?

With the government acting as healthcare regulators, they are certainly not going to play fair as they can stack the deck anyway they see fit to get more and more Americans on their plan. In fact, one independent study has already concluded that 119 million Americans will end up leaving their private plans for the public plan.

Above that, the public option will be able to raid the coffers of the federal budget for more and more money whenever they want. Running low on money? Simple, just raise taxes! How can a private insurer compete with that?

Obviously, they cannot.

Additionally, when Obama says that the public option will “keep the industry honest”; I cannot help but chuckle to myself. When has Washington had the moral high ground to lecture anyone about honesty? But even beyond that, honesty is already in the industry in the form of competition. With over 1500 carriers, companies have no choice but to be honest or else they run the serious risk of losing customers to the myriad of other insurance options available to them.

By the way, should we really trust these people with running the healthcare industry? Don’t forget that these are the same people that, according to Vice President Biden, so badly misjudged the economy that they think we need a second stimulus plan.

So if massive healthcare reform does pass, get ready for a drastic change in, not only your insurance coverage, but also the quality of care that you receive.

How much change in the quality of care? Come back tomorrow to find out.

Let me warn you though, it will be very, very depressing.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

The Great Climate Change Boondoggle: Part Two.

Yesterday, I only brushed on the growing skepticism that the Environmental Left is experiencing regarding global warming and man’s supposed impact on it in Part One of The Great Climate Change Boondoggle. I would have loved to present more information; however, the post would have run thousands of words long, rather than the hundreds that it did. If you are interested in finding more information regarding scientists and political leaders that refuse to drink the global warming Kool-Aid, check out the following articles:

“No climate debate? Yes there is.” by Jeff Jacoby.

“A Closer Look at Climate Change.” by Mark W. Hendrickson.

“Planet Gore” on nationalreview.com.

Before I continue, let me just say that I am not against protecting the environment. In fact, far from it. I do believe in prohibiting corporations, governments and individuals from needlessly harming the environment through sensible restrictions and laws.

I do not, however, condone radically changing our way of life or seriously undermining our economic prowess based on shoddy scientific evidence… and that is precisely what is being proposed in the Waxman-Markey climate bill that is steamrolling through Congress as we speak.

The main section of this 1,500-page behemoth of a bill is the so-called “Cap-and-Trade” plan. In a nutshell, Cap-and-Trade works like this (from americanprogressive.org):

Each company has a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas that it can emit. The company must have an “emissions permit” for each ton of carbon dioxide it releases into the atmosphere. These permits set an enforceable limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that the company is allowed to emit.

It will be relatively cheaper or easier for some companies to reduce their emissions below their required limit than others. These more efficient companies, who emit less than their allowance, can sell their extra permits to companies that are not able to make reductions as easily.

Firms that exceed the carbon cap can also purchase extra permits from the federal government.

Now, the Center for American Progress is a liberal think tank, so I am not surprised that they are toeing the party line in this description. For the most part, they objectively lay out the program in a truthful manner, except they leave out one important word.

That word?

Tax.

“Emission permits” is a politically correct version of “tax” and a word they and the democrats pushing this bill desperately want to avoid when discussing it.

How much tax is the average family going to have to incur as a result of this plan? Well, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, about $1,600 per household, per year, just on extra energy (utilities and gas) costs. So much for not raising taxes on 95% of American, right President Obama? (Do keep in mind that these projections are notoriously low).

A Heritage Foundation analysis finds that Waxman-Markey would, by 2035, raise electricity rates 90%, gasoline prices 74% and residential natural gas prices 55%.

Now, that’s just the direct impact on an average household right now. When you look at the impact this bill would have on the entire economy, this picture becomes more and more frightening.

The Obama administration has estimated the revenue value of these rights, if purchased from the government by private industry, will be as high as $1.8 trillion over 10 years. That’s $1.8 trillion out of the productive private sector and into the inefficient public sector.

Plus, this placement of an artificial cap on carbon emissions is bad enough; but what’s even worse is that the cap lowers every year. That means that year after year, the restrictions placed upon businesses becomes harder and harder to meet, making future economic growth smaller and smaller.

This slower growth will also mean that more and more Americans will lose their jobs, as companies need to find ways to come up with the $1.8 trillion in taxes that has just been dropped in their lap for the next decade. Don’t buy into the “Green Jobs” charade that the Obama Administration is selling right now either. Various researchers are discovering that we most likely would lose more jobs than we would gain and that many of these green jobs would be extremely non-productive and subsidized by the government...another tax.

This bill would also put more emphasis on energy sources that are renewable, but incredibly unreliable like wind and solar power meaning more and more roving blackouts that the good citizens of California currently experience.

By the way, the reductions in carbon emissions made possibly from this bill will essentially mean nothing if China and India don’t pass similar measures.

Guess what, neither of them have any plans to do so.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John