UPDATE: ObamaCare - If a Corporation Did This, People Would Go To Jail

Back in March (ObamaCare - If a Corporation Did This, People Would Go To Jail) I noted that if private corporations did what the Government was doing with Obamacare, that the Government would go after them for criminal activity. The basis of my argument was the dodgy financial justification the Democrats made for passage of Obamacare in that it would save the country and citizens billions of dollars. In reality, the savings were always an illusion at the real expenses were hidden in the years after the Government's ten year accounting review. Corporations however are not permitted such accounting gimmickry.

Now that the HealthCare.Gov website is proven to be even more of a disaster than expected and given the millions of health insurance cancellation notices that Americans are receiving, others are making the connection that President Obama's Democrat Administration is openly behaving in a way that would result in criminal prosecutions had they acted this way as a private business.

President Obama’s oft-repeated falsehood, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” — something the administration knew was untrue — would almost certainly be a textbook case of deceptive advertising, punishable under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practice in or affecting commerce.” This includes a “representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer,” such that the consumer would be “likely to have chosen differently but for the deception.” - Andrew Stiles, National Review

The article also notes that the HealthCare.Gov website provides in many cases very inaccurate insurance cost estimates, by design. Go read the whole article. Also read my initial post on this subject which covers the financial lies that were used to pass Obamacare in the first place. All of this should be remembered when the next election comes around.

-------------------- --------------------

UPDATE: I Told You So: 'Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care'

I noted back in 2009 when the Health Care debate was going on that 'What they are not telling you is that once they have stuck us all with more expensive 'free' health care, they are going to grant all of the illegal aliens not only legal status, but also citizenship. And with Citizenship, they will surely get free health care.' (Link) This prediction was confirmed later in 2009 by President Obama himself:

Simply put, this is how Democrats can claim that no illegal aliens are going to receive US Health care, because they plan to legalize all of them:

President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.- FFI

 Now we have Idiot Politician of the Day, Democrat Congressman Jared Polis from Colorado oddly declaring that the problem with Obamacare (as if there is only one) is that Obamacare does not cover illegal aliens.

Illegal immigrants are one of the few categories of people in the U.S. who aren’t subjected to Obamacare’s individual mandate requiring all people to have health insurance coverage. They also aren’t eligible for taxpayer subsidies to buy insurance on the health exchanges, nor are they supposed to be getting assistance under Medicaid.

But Mr. Polis said leaving them outside of the health mandate means that they end up using emergency care, but don’t end up paying their own bills — leaving the rest of the country to pick up those costs. - Washington Post

Of course what he does not explain is how most of the illegal aliens in the country if legalized will be net takers of the system.Worse, many 'legalized' illegal aliens would not purchase medical insurance, instead taking advantage of the system in much of the same way as they do now. As it is, they have access to free health care for their children. When I was living in DC, I had asked the doctor, how come they do not have to pay a co-pay like everyone else? The response was that if they had to pay ANYTHING, they wouldn't bring their children to the doctor. Good luck getting them to pay anything legalized or not. Legalization will just increase how much money the Government gives them each month...

-------------------- --------------------

The Presidential Lie: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

News is getting out not only that millions of Americans with personal health insurance plans are going to lose their plans, but also that the Obama Administration and the President himself knew that this was going to happen. First, a reminder of how the President repeatedly told this lie:

Here is NBC News reporting that President Obama's Administration knew that the "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" was a lie.

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. - NBC News

Keep in mind that the Regulations issued by the Obama Administration are written to disqualify as many existing plans as possible, doing their best to undue the grandfather clause that was put into the law.

-------------------- --------------------

Jim Rogers - Central planners' policies are punishing the prudent in favor of rescuing the irresponsible

I read the following by financial commentator Jim Rogers and it really fits with what I think has been happening for the last couple of years:

To Rogers, the bigger danger that concerns him is the hollowing out of the 'saving class' resulting from this situation. Central planners' policies are punishing the prudent in favor of rescuing the irresponsible. This has happened before in world history, and the aftermath has always had grievous economic, social -- and often human -- costs:

Throughout our history – any country’s history – the people who save their money and invest for their future are the ones that you build an economy, a society, and a nation on.

In America, many people saved their money, put it aside, and didn’t buy four or five houses with no job and no money down. They did what most people would consider the right thing, and what historically has been the right thing. But now, unfortunately, those people are being wiped out, because they are getting 0% return, or virtually no return, on their savings and their investments. We’re wiping them out at the expense of people who went deeply into debt, people who did what most people would consider the wrong thing at the expense of people who did the right thing. This, long-term, has terrible consequences for any nation, any society, any economy.

If you go back in history, you'll see what happed to the Germans when they wiped out their savings class in the 1920s. It didn’t lead to good things down the road for Germany. It didn’t lead to good things for Italy, which did the same thing. There were plenty of countries where it wiped out the people who saved and invested for their future. It’s usually a serious, political reaction, desperation in some cases, and looking for a savior and easy answers is usually what happens when you destroy the people who save and invest for the future.

- PeakProsperity.com

The United States all of a sudden has no shortage of irresponsible people. Nothing is anyone's fault anymore. Too many demand free money and more from the Government. And all too often Liberals and even Conservatives are giving it to them, in exchange for votes at election time.

Don't get me wrong, some people do legitimately deserve assistance, but way less than we are supporting now. And none of these people are going to help build a better country. It is the saver who invest and it is investment that drivers our country and others to an ever better future. It is also savings and investment that improves the welfare of many. Take the 'evil' oil companies. If they really were making so much money and were such cash cows, why not say 'me too' and put some money into these corporations? You can do direct investing in ExxonMobil for as little as $250. Is that too much money, well that is the point of saving. You save until you have enough to buy what you want. Point to someone who has no money and I bet I can point to their way too expensive sneakers, sunglasses, clothing, car, gadgets, vacations, etc... that they also don't have money for but somehow manage to get anyway.

Worse, many of them are liable to have children that will also require support for most of their lives. The Democrats are counting on this, because these people will continues to be their base voters for years to come. 

This is also why the Democrats are pushing to legalize illegal aliens and provide them with a 'Path to Citizenship'. Many of these illegal aliens are 'High Needs' parents. It does not mean that there is something wrong with their children or that their children need special care. Instead, it is the parents that need to be told and reminded about everything about being a good parent to their children. This was as explained to me by a pediatrician in Washington, DC. My kid's first pediatrician. This was during a checkup where she was advising us that she was leaving because she was being burned out due to all the high needs parents she had to deal with. It just so happened that these 'high needs' parents bills were being paid by tax payers. Even the co-pay. It was not that the parents did not have $10, $15 or even $20 to pay for the ability to take their kid to the doctor. It was simply because if they did have to pay anything, they would not take their kid to see a doctor. 

This is the heart of the problem. And this problem will only grow until we stop paying out like a broken ATM.

Go hear to listen to the entire Jim Rogers Interview on Peak Prosperity.

-------------------- --------------------

Americans Being Treated Worse Than Illegal Aliens - Immigration

Talk about being unequal before the law. Americans are forced to go through evermore humiliating inspection and investigation at the border, while millions of illegal aliens bypassed our border controls and now enjoy near immunity when it comes to being held to account for violating our immigration laws:

The Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog has concluded that travelers along the nation’s borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security. - Wired.com

Now compare this with how illegal aliens are free to roam the country with little fear of arrest, even able to appear before Congress.

Breitbart News has learned that one of the witnesses at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on immigration next week will be outspoken illegal immigrant Jose Antonio Vargas--who will be seated at the same table as Chris Crane, leader of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement employees’ union that is suing the government over Obama administration rules that make it very difficult for ICE agents to arrest illegal immigrants. - Breitbart.com

Jose Antonio Vargas is not just an illegal alien, he has also been caught with bogus documents and has been let go. Imagine what would happen if you were caught with bogus documents these days. Sure he came here when he was twelve so technically you could blame his immigration problems on his parents, but the Government is not going to blame, or punish, them either.

The inequality does not stop at the border either. In order to get a Green Card for my wife I agreed to be fully responsible for her. She is not eligible f or unemployment or welfare until she performs 40 quarters (10 years) of full-time work. In addition, there was the physical, the interviews, the multiple meeting and hours of time wasted not to mention well over $1,000 in fees. 

Any legalization of illegal aliens best come with a boatload of requirements like I was forced to sign. The kicker was that if we got divorced after two years, she would get to stay and I would still be fully responsible. You can bet that the Obama Administration is planning to give legalized illegal-aliens free health care (At least this is my prediction). Funny how they don't do that for legal immigrants even banning access as part of a precondition for entry.

-------------------- --------------------

2.3 Percent Tax on Medical Devices To Kill Thousands of US Jobs

Keep in mind that the US Government's definition of 'Medical Devices' that will be subject to a 2.3% tax on gross sales includes even such generic items such as rubber gloves. Even better, the tax applies to products that are are also used in veterinary medicine.

So vet visits are probably going to go up as well. And since this is a gross sales tax, regardless of profit or loss, it seems that some medical manufactures are thinking twice about having their manufacturing in the US:

According to the Treasury Department, the medical device companies actually stand to benefit from the law. Though the 2.3 percent tax hits the industry, the department argues that the millions of new health care customers insured as a result of the law will increase the demand in hospitals to order more equipment -- in turn boosting medical device companies' profits.

That’s not how the industry sees it. Stephen J. Ubl, president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, said this week in response to the IRS rules that the tax could cost thousands of jobs – and is already causing companies to lay off workers and cut back on research and development.

“While Washington talks about a fiscal cliff, this tax could push us off an innovation cliff, costing as many as 43,000 jobs and hurting the ability of medical technology companies to find tomorrow’s treatments and cures. It should be repealed,” he said. - Fox News

Sure, you can say that it is only 2.3 percent, but this is out of a maximum of 100%, any more and the business involved is operating at a loss. Out of that 100% revenue total needs to come all of the expenses of the business from raw materials, salaries, manufacturing, research and so on. And lets not forget that if you manage to make a profit, you need to pay taxed before passing those profits to the shareholders, who then pay taxes on this same profit again.

As I have said before, President Obama and the Democrats hate your job. This is just one more example where they are doing nothing to protect these jobs or the industry as a whole, which I would dare say is probably a global powerhouse of development and innovation and at the end of the day a source of massive amounts of tax revenue both directly from the corporations as well as from those who back these companies and eventually profit from them.

Update: 11 Dec 12
 Surprise! Senate Democrats are calling for a delay in implementing this job-killing tax:

In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, 18 Democrat senators and senators-elect have asked for “a delay in the implementation” of the Obamacare medical device tax. Like most of the significant tax increases in Obamacare, the medical device tax is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2013, conveniently after the 2012 presidential election.

Each of the 18 Democrat signatories voted for or supported Obamacare in the first place. And now they want a sweetheart exemption from one of its most onerous provisions. Even in Washington DC, that shows a lot of gall. - ATR.Org (Click to read the list of Democrat Senators signing the letter)

There is one way to delay the tax, delay ObamaCare!
-------------------- --------------------

ObamaCare and Blood Donations

I passed by a blood drive in the area on Saturday. I was asked if I wanted to donate and the first thing that passed into my mind was Obamacare. It was a cynical thought of whether ObamaCare required blood donation. This is how bitter I feel about the crap that is ObamaCare.

You see, when the Government steps in and demands to run the show on anything, like healthcare, then they can go find the blood. As it is, they were out in an area of tax-payers. Why not go and stick needles in the half of the population that does not pay any taxes? Really, if they are not contributing tax revenue, they can contribute in other ways, like giving blood. Of course they won't, unless they get paid to do it. And this is the joke of the whole system and the Democrats pushing it. They repeatedly call for the better (revenue-earning) half of the population to do their 'fair share' and pay more taxes. And yet, there is a huge portion of the population that pays no share towards the common good. They only consume. Even when the contribute, they won't, unless there is something in it for them. Where is the fairness in that.

The only confidence I have is that the unfairness of this system will be it's doom.
--
P.S. No, I didn't donate blood. I do however vow that I will donate once ObamaCare is repealed. At that point I leave it to the nurse to get a full pint out of me. My body stops giving after about a half pint.

-------------------- --------------------

Virginia's 11th Congressional District - Fimian over Connolly

First, I am not a Tea Partier. That said, I wish that the Tea Party paid a little more attention to Virginia's 11th Congressional District race. I say this because I would like to actually be excited about who I am voting for more so than I am about voting out my current Congressman. Then again, there is lots to like about voting against the current guy.

For starters, given that I can't stand having Pelosi in charge of the House of Representatives, there is no way that I am going to vote for the Democrat, Connolly. Since I can't vote directly against Nancy Pelosi, I have to do it through her local proxy, which is Congressman Gerry Connolly. He voted for the 'Stimulus' Bill as well as for ObamaCare. So he needs to go.

This leaves the Republican challenger, Keith Fimian.

On the surface he sounds like a good choice. He is both against illegal immigration and for appealing ObamaCare. As it is, one of his promises is to introduce legislation to repeal it if he is elected:

The Pelosi-Connolly Healthcare Plan is Wrong for America

What is for certain is that government-run healthcare bill Democrats rammed through Congress will reduce the quality of care, increase costs, stifle innovation and create yet another unresponsive government bureaucracy that views Americans as statistics and not as individuals.

The plan is based on cutting $200 billion out of Medicare, raiding social security, and may threaten the healthcare benefits our nation’s veterans have earned.

The American people do not want this legislation. That is why Democrats used procedural maneuvers pass it. We can address each real problem with our system with stand alone legislation, not another massive bureaucracy and 2,300 page health care bill whose proponents have yet to even read it.

I will introduce legislation in Congress to repeal it. - Keith Fimian for Congress

The Washington Examiner also comes out with an endorsement for Fimian:

Incumbent Virginia Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly exemplifies the fading political fortunes of the freshman tax-and-spenders who rode President Obama’s coattails into Congress two years ago. The former chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and president of the 2008 congressional class, Connolly loyally cast votes for the president’s $814 billion stimulus bill, bank bailouts, cap and trade and Obamacare. RealClearPolitics rates this year’s rematch of Connolly and businessman Keith Fimian as a “toss up.”

Connolly’s inflammatory campaign ads paint Fimian as an “extremist” and himself as a fiscal conservative. Both claims are false. Voters should disregard these distractions from Connolly’s record in Congress and send him back to Fairfax. Fimian, a William & Mary football captain and CPA who built a nationwide home inspection business, has a vision for reviving the national economy. This requires removing the paralyzing uncertainty now facing small business created by the same legislation Connolly voted for. One less career politician — and one more job creator — is what Congress needs and Fimian will be. - Washington Examiner

The NRA has come out for Fimian while at the same time slamming Connolly for what is basically a lack of respect for rights that were guaranteed to Americans in the Bill of Rights.

VOTE FREEDOM FIRST - VOTE KEITH FIMIAN FOR CONGRESS

Dear Virginia NRA Member: October 13,2010

The NRA-PVF (www.NRAPVF.org) has endorsed Keith Fimian for Congress. It is critical that you vote for Keith Fimian for Congress, and urge your family and friends to do the same. We need to bolster our ranks in Congress to keep this White House from pursuing an anti-gun agenda after the 2010 elections.

That's why it's more important than ever that we elect Keith Fimian to Congress to firewall around our Second Amendment rights. Keith Fimian is rated an "AQ" by the NRA-PVF for his pro-gun responses to our federal candidate questionnaire, and he is committed to opposing federal gun control and support pro-gun reforms.

By contrast, his opponent - Congressman Gerry Connolly - has earned an “F” rating for his extreme anti-gun positions, and for accepting campaign contributions from national gun ban groups like the Brady Campaign. Connolly was one of the few congressmen who signed the anti-gun “friend of the court” brief in the landmark McDonald case arguing that the Second Amendment is NOT a fundamental right guaranteed to all Americans and supporting the Chicago gun ban. Connolly also has cosponsored federal legislation to regulate gun shows - like the one held quarterly at the Dulles Expo Center - out of business. Connolly voted last year against allowing carry permit holders to carry and transport firearms for self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges. Finally, Connolly refused to answer our federal candidate questionnaire this year - a clear indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to the rights of gun owners and sportsmen.

The choice is clear! All gun owners and sportsmen in Virginia's eleventh congressional district should support Keith Fimian on Election Day. If you can volunteer to help, please contact his campaign at www.KeithFimian.com and703-621-7169. Also spread the word to your family, friends, and fellow gun owners. And on November 2, Vote Freedom First - Vote Keith Fimian for Congress!

Sincerely Chris W. Cox - NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

I think the choice is clear and easy. As far as my neighbors go, I am not aware of any of them who are not voting for him, other than the family with 'LIBERAL' license plates. And even then I am not sure because I have not talked with them.

UPDATE: OK, my blog is running anti-Fimian ads despite my attempts to filter them out. Whatever, go and see that the Democrats have against Fimian. It does not effect the reasons stated above. this election is more than about the candidates above, it is about which party controls Congress. If you want Pelosi to ram through more crap legislation, then pull the Democrat lever. If not, than you need to pull for the Republican candidate. Simple as that.

-------------------- --------------------

Chamber of Commerce Money and ObamaCare Funded Abortions

The Obama White House has been trying to hammer the Chamber of Commerce with false accusations that they are using foreign money to run election ads against Democrats.

“I challenge the Chamber of Commerce to tell us how much of the money they’re investing is from foreign sources,” Biden said Monday. “I challenge them. If I’m wrong, I will stand corrected."

White House adviser David Axelrod took heat from Bob Schieffer of CBS News Sunday when he did not provide any specific evidence of what was leading the White House to draw such conclusions about the Chamber's collection of funds overseas, saying only: "Do you have any evidence that it's not, Bob?" - Politico

Basically, the claim is that since the Chamber receives foreign money, that it's ad program is subsidized by these foreign funds. It is an interesting claim, but as the recent news comes out, if this is an accurate claim, then it is something that the Democrats are guilty of as well.

But this issue has bigger problems for Obama, because it strikes at the heart of the Democrats argument of including abortion funding in ObamaCare Legislation.

In the state-based exchanges that the law creates, people without employer-based coverage will be able to buy private insurance using a combination of their own money and federal subsidies that most will receive based on their income level. Drafters of the law attempted to assuage both sides of the abortion debate through a compromise that ended up pleasing neither.

Insurers are allowed to include abortion coverage in their exchange plans, but everyone who buys such a plan must make two separate premium payments: one covering the bulk of the policy and another, far smaller one, as little as $1 per month, for the plan's abortion coverage. Any federal subsidies can be applied only to the first payment.

Antiabortion groups complain that the arrangement amounts to little more than an accounting gimmick. Unless plans that accept federally subsidized customers are barred from covering abortion, they say, the government will effectively be using at least some tax dollars to fund abortions. - Washington Post

So once again the President and his Democrat allies are taking both sides of an argument, simply to meet their needs of the moment.

-------------------- --------------------

Labor Day Gadsden Flag - Photo

The house I bought earlier this year came with a flagpole. It was a nice bonus and saved me the trouble of flying a flag from the house. Plus, the wife would not have been too eager for me to put up a flagpole.

But since I have one, I fly the flag every day. And for special occasions I throw up the Gadsden Flag as well.

Given that the wife is not American, I needed to educate her on 'the snake flag', which I did by giving her a copy of wikipedia's Gadsden Flag entry.

And no, I am not TEA Party, but I support many of their beliefs, including less government, less taxes, less spending, tackling illegal immigration and getting rid of that awful health care law. This of course means that the Democrats need to lose control of Congress. And by default this also means that there is no such thing as a good Democrat Congressman this election as a vote for any of them is a vote for keeping Pelosi and Reid in power. Given how crappy the Republicans have been I am not too happy about having to vote for them to get this change. I am however encouraged that it appears that I am not the only one pissed off and is finding new Republicans to replace many of the problem ones. I would like to see more of that.

-------------------- --------------------

Congressman Stupak Headline Correction

Here is an entry on Drudge Report covering how Congressman Stupak sold his vote on Health Care reform.

For me, the headline is all wrong in that a big part of the trade involved Stupak trading away the lives of unborn babies.

WASHINGTON, March 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of the conservative grassroots public policy organization Eagle Forum, made the following remarks after the public announcement that formerly pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak (D-MI) will cast a "yes" vote for the Senate health care bill today in the House:

"It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as 'pro-life,' to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama's first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion."

"Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world."

"Barack Obama has lined every existing federal agency with the most dedicated pro-abortion ideologues, and we know that he will continue this pattern of pro-abortion appointments when it comes time for him to fill the over-100 bureaucracies created to administer his socialized health care program."

"Any formerly pro-life Democrat who casts a 'Yes' vote for this Senate health care bill tonight will be forever remembered as being among the deciding votes which facilitated the largest expansion of abortion services since Roe v. Wade."

"Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn't willfully align themselves with the Party of Death."

"This vote will expose the myth of the 'pro-life Democrat.' With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same."

CONTACT: Suzanne Bibby, (610) 608-6303

SOURCE Phyllis Schlafly - Yahoo News

As far as I am concerned, the President was able to sign this Health Care bill into law because Congressman Stupak enabled it's passage by selling out the lives of unborn babies. It is that plain and simple. Sure other votes were bought to get this bill passed, but he got paid off to drop his concern for the protection of unborn children. Concern like that should have no price.

This makes me wonder if he ever cared about this issue or simply knew that it was the best way to get a payoff. Turned out is was. I just wonder why he sold so cheap...

-------------------- --------------------

OBAMACARE - A Big F.U. to Everyone who Voted Against, and For Obama

A quick though about the horrendous ObamaCare health care reform that Congress just shoved down our throats last night. Looking at the situation, I truly think that not only did the Democrats and President Obama fuck over those against ObamaCare. He and the Democrats also fucked over his supporters. Here is why:

• First, this 'reform' will most likely only benefit those who would vote for Democrats no matter what they do or don't do for them. So it is hard to call it a payoff for supporters. However, the Democrats are sticking those who voted against them with a huge bill to pay for it. (Well, many who voted for them are getting a piece of the bill as well)


• Second, All of the voters who are excited that the Democrats did this for them and who believed that we had to act NOW! because people were dying, are certainly going to wonder come election time in November, 2010 when they realize that all of the people without coverage will still not be covered, even though this 'reform' promises coverage for the uninsured.


• Third, many of the current supporters are going to be outraged come Presidential Election time in 2012 when they realize that they are still not covered, even though this 'reform' promises coverage for the uninsured. And yet, they will still vote for Democrats because somehow the Republicans will still be evil.


• Fourth, how many Americans are still going to die because the Democrats had to lie by hiding just how expensive this 'reform' is really going to cost. You can bet though that we will no longer be hearing health care sob stories of those who will be ObamaCare delay victims. (Note: This is in addition to all the babies that are going to get aborted, thanks to a Government fund this 'reform' sets up.)

Congress could have enacted good health care reform. But instead they chose to enact some monstrosity. Shame on them. Eventually the truth will come out, but it is sad that we have to subject ourselves to this painful road of discovery. Which, I am sorry to say, will become ever more painful once the Democrats somehow find a way to legalize all the illegal aliens out there and let them flood our health care system with high demand patients.

Update:

Here is one example of the lie being pushed forward. No, the doctor is not going to see you now. He might in 2014, provided he has not given up care-giving by then...

From the LA Times:

WASHINGTON (AP) — When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare law in 1965, seniors got their health insurance cards less than a year later.

When President Barack Obama finally gets to hold a signing ceremony for his health care overhaul, the major expansion of coverage for uninsured workers and their families won't come until 2014 — after the next presidential election.

Parts of the plan won't be fully phased in for a decade, but ultimately 94 percent of eligible Americans would have coverage. - LA Times

And just think, starting in 2011:

Requires employers to report the value of health care benefits on employees' W-2 tax statements. - LA Times

This move will cost workers thousands of dollars in higher income taxes. Add to that the real possibility of the Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of this year.

Update 23 March 2010:

Ace of Spades has posted 'We Can Repeal This' which backs up my claim that ObamaCare is a big F.U. to most everyone both Republican and Democrat:

This is not the sort of bill that becomes "unrepealable" as Social Security and Medicare would. Social Security and Medicare paid their benefits to everyone who became elderly; there was something in each program for everyone. Sure, there were a lot of people who did not get out of these programs what they paid into it, but they got something out of it. Even if some richer seniors only got 80% back or so, well, eight cents on the dollar isn't a deal you'd normally take but it's also not so horrible a deal you'll get riled up enough to change your political behavior.

That has always been the secret of how the progressives shift income from the middle class to the poor -- they establish programs which have benefits for the middle-class, too, even if those benefits are less than what the middle class actually pays into the system. The middle class at least feels like it's getting something out of the deal, and, well, if they're not quite getting out of the deal as much as they put in, they shrug it off in the interests of being nice and helping the needy and so on.

But this bill doesn't do that. There is, in fact, no benefit for the 85% of the country that have part of their salaries diverted into a third-party insurance plan. There is nothing for them but additional taxes and additional rationing of their care so that part of their salaries -- I am stressing, a health insurance plan is just a part of your salary -- can be paid to someone else.

On top of that, the plan will add trillions to the deficit, as even with all those new taxes and rationing of care and impounding people's salaries to give them to someone else, it still isn't paid for.

I just don't see this like Social Security or Medicare. Those benefited the middle class, and furthermore benefited everyone, eventually (assuming they didn't die earlier in their lives). This bill benefits only a discrete, easily-identifiable fraction of the population at the direct and unambiguous expense of everyone else.

I just don't see this plan ever becoming popular with those being forced to hand over larger and larger parts of each paycheck to perfect strangers. People are never going to be unsure whether or not they're the ones Taking or they're the ones being Taken From.

And the Taken From is 85% of the country. - Ace of Ace of Spaces Blog (Go read the whole post)

Of course it is the poor who are losing nothing in all of this, which is one reason why they are so excited about this. It just so happens to be that Health Care Christmas will be held in 2014 and not immediately. It is just that the rest of us need to start paying more immediately in order for the Government to have some money for the giveaway they are planning. I bet the excitement would be rather lacking if the poor had to contribute as well. Say by having a percentage of their unemployment or welfare payments taken as a fee for health care. I suspect their enthusiasm for health care would disappear with many rather risking having no insurance than losing any cash support..

-------------------- --------------------

The Democrats Horrible 'Health Insurance' - 'Car Insurance' Analogy

It seems that the Democrats are going to manage to force most of us to pay for health care for the rest. So I guess we are all going to learn the hard way what a bad plan they have come up with.

One argument Democrats have used to back up a Government requirement for citizens to have health care insurance is to compare it to rules that require all automobile drivers to have car insurance.

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.” - ABC

I find this analogy not only bad but worse, also very misleading.

After all, it is not a requirement that every person in America buy insurance but instead that all cars driving on the road have insurance.

Now if the Government wanted to lower car insurance rates, then requiring everyone in the US to have car insurance would be one way to do it. That would add millions of new premium payers. Given that almost none of them would ever collect on this insurance, given that they do not have cars, it would be little more than a tax on those who do not require the insurance now.

Also, another reason why comparing their push for mandatory health care insurance to auto insurance is a bad idea for them is because car insurance is actually based on risk, something the Democrats are loath to permit when it comes to health insurance.

After all, a person's car insurance rates depend on many factors, including:

• The type of coverage desired
• Where you get your insurance. You can buy car insurance across state lines (Mine comes from Texas. I live in VA)
• The type of car you drive
• Your age
• The age of others in the house
• Your driving record
• The driving record of others in the house

Basically, what you way for insurance is calculated against the risk the insurance company thinks you are. There is the one issue that does generate lots of complaints, and that is the penalty for young drivers both in general as well as when there is a young driver in the house.

One issue that has always bothered me about car insurance is that in some states where I have lived I was required to purchase as part of the policy, uninsured insurance. (So much for the requirement to have insurance, right?)

One would think that health insurance rates would be based on a person's:

• Present health and health history
• Physical condition (Overweight, obese)
• Type of coverage that they are looking for (All-inclusive, catastrophic only, or anywhere in between.)
  
• Lifestyle choices (Smoking, excessive drinking, drug abuse)

And if they really want to connect health care to how the Government handles car registrations, then all you need do is look to New York State, which is using their role in car registrations as a way to get additional revenue from it's residents by forcing them to buy new license plates:

ALBANY — New York drivers will start paying for new license plates next year — whether they want to or not.

Beginning in April, car and tractor-trailer owners alike will have to shell out $25 for spruced-up license plates, by dictate of state leaders coming up with new ways to wring out revenue as an unprecedented budget shortfall looms.

The new plates, featuring a bold new gold hue and a highly reflective surface, will make the roads safer and “reflect New York’s force and its resilience,” according to the state’s commissioner of motor vehicles.

They will also generate $260 million in revenue and create more than 100 jobs — at the maximum security prison where inmates make the plates for up to 42 cents an hour. - New York Times

The blow-back in this case was so bad that the Governor has admitted that this action is little more than an asset grab from State citizens.

ALBANY — So much for that reflectivity argument.

Gov. David Paterson said Tuesday that the controversial new $25 fee on New York license plates was nothing more than a "revenue grab" and drivers do not need new license plates.

The state had hoped to bring in $129 million in new revenue by forcing drivers to get new plates when their vehicles' registrations expire. Paterson said the state moved up the date by a year to require the new license plates in order to raise revenue. - Democrat and Chronicle

This is how Government does motor vehicle registrations. Imagine the games that they are going to play if/when they get control of health care!

-------------------- --------------------

Bogus Public Health Care Insurance Option Ad - 'Competition'

I saw this ad from an organization that calls itself 'Health Care for America Now'.
--------------------

--------------------
Link

My first reaction to this ad was that these people are full of bullsh*t.

It is not that they don't identify a real problem, because they do. This organization is full of bull sh*t because of their endorsement of the Democrat solution of a 'public' health care option. Really, for a state with only one or two health care insurance providers, adding a Government-run public option is only going to add one more player to the market. And that one additional service provider will be a Government-run insurance provider that has the ability to offer a competing product at below-cost rates. (Taxpayers then pay the difference from the rates charged and the actual cost of the care provided.) That is not the addition of a competitor but a path to single payer. This is because the 'public' option will drive the competition out of business. The ad give example of the current lack of competition in parts of the US given how some areas have only one or two insurance companies active in those markets.

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

Not mentioned in the ad is the reason behind this problem. That being the ban on the purchase of health insurance across state lines. This is another reason these people are full of bull is that if they were serious in solving this problem of a lack of competition, they they would be pushing for an end to the ban on buying health insurance across state lines.

If this limitation was removed, then Congress would achieve their goal of increasing competition across the whole United States without the need of a 'Public' option. However, this is not their goal. Their goal has always been Government-controlled health care. And if they get their way, there will be only one health care organization allowed to offer health care across state lines and that will be the Federal Government.

Another thing about the 'Public Option' is that the current bills in Congress will only permit a small population of Americans eligible to enroll, so for almost all Americans the public option will not change the availability of additional health insurance providers at all, which is the main argument of this commercial. So for most people the situation above will remain even if Congress approves health care reform.

Assuming that those behind the ad are relatively smart and informed people, what exactly are they trying to accomplish with this ad?

-------------------- --------------------