I don't think anyone should be in the least surprised about the arbitrary (kindest word I could think of) numbers that are thrown around by Obama and his administration.
I mean, after all, during his campaign he said he visited ..... let's see how many states was it he said?
And how many jobs does his administration say they've saved with the Stimulus Package I?
It is obvious that the only long term jobs (or positions) that have been created are those he created in government. Most jobs that have been "created" on "main street America" are mostly temporary jobs and/or short-term project work. Yet, the Administration's website touts large numbers from mystical congressional districts all over the country that simply do not exist.... just like the promised jobs! Each of these jobs cost you the taxpayer an average of $173K. And if a worker made as much as $53K for this job, where did the other $120K go? And really.... you cannot count jobs saved!
In regard to mystical healthcare numbers, Obama's administration had said at first that there are from 46 to 47 million people in the US who are without health insurance. Then somehow it became more like 30+ million. So, who really knows? Here are some of the factors that make determining this number difficult to pinpoint - but let's illustrate worst-case scenario using numbers from 2007:
Of the 46 million who the Administration claimed are uninsured, 6.4 million are already on government-funded healthcare program but consider themselves as non-insured. One reason for this is that these people were automatically enrolled or pre-enrolled by a medical facility after receiving treatment at an emergency room or free clinic. They may not be paying insurance premiums, but they certainly have access to medical care any time they need it!
Another group of 4.3 million people are eligible to go on a federally funded Medicaid or SCHIP or something similar, but they simply have not signed up. If they were to go to a free clinic or emergency room, they, too, would automatically be shifted into the group above, and while they aren't paying insurance premiums, they technically have no healthcare coverage risk.
Approximately 10 million are non-citizens. How many of these are illegals is not known, but it would most likely be a staggering amount.
More than 10 million don't fit into either of the above groups, but they have substantial incomes. In fact, usually more than three times the poverty level. Included in that group, as well, are single income earners whose income is over $30K per year, and a family of four has an income of more than $62,000 per year who simply have chosen not to acquire healthcare coverage or they may be influx between an old job and new job and are awaiting the new coverage to "kick in".
From the remaining group, approximately 15.6 million, 5 million are adults between 18 and 34 without kids. They are US citizens, some of whom fall below poverty level and somehow are not eligible for federally funded health insurance program, and most are not a childless adult between age 18-34.
So, given the above breakdown, we're talking about only 15.6 million who currently may not have healthcare coverage because they cannot afford it or because they simply cannot get it. These people should be the ones that the government focused on - the ones who need some kind of intervention for the Democrats to be satisfied that everyone had access to healthcare.
But they aren't satisfied... for two reasons. Number one and most importantly, they don't have control of the healthcare industry. Don't be fooled; that is their goal. Second, they will be forcing those younger Americans who want to spend their money on something other than healthcare into a healthcare plan.... or be penalized. Either way, the government is getting deeper into their pockets, too! (Plus stripping them of a personal choice.)
My math is not that great, but that appears to be that only about 5% of Americans are presently the ones who actually need healthcare coverage and cannot afford or obtain it. YET, Harry Reid's latest proposed Senate healthcare bill is being touted as covering 94% of Americans. Does that mean the last group listed above will be left out - again? How has that improved any situation for other Americans? Isn't this hoopla about healthcare reform then much ado -- all for 1% of Americans? Would somebody explain this in plain ENGLISH?
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
PolitiSpeak - Very Important to Know
Several months ago, when I was awakened to how really bleak the future of our country had become, I felt totally helpless to do anything about it, but knew something had to be done before it was too late. I wanted so badly to be able to make a difference, but I didn't know where to start. I started this blog simply as a way to "relieve" the pent up anger and angst that I was feeling with nearly every news report of TARP, Omnibus Package, Bank Bail out, AIG, GM and Chrysler. The more I heard, the worse I felt and I had to "let it out" in some fashion.
Since I started this blog a couple months ago, I have been continually educating myself through research for my blogs and through other avenues. I watched town hall meetings on television. I went to a local tea party rally. And even more intimidating to me, an apolitical person, I became a member of a new activist group who holds the same values and political views that I have, and whose members feel the same emotions.
"It's not what you say; it's what they hear." - Luntz Maslansky Strategic Research.
Since I started this blog a couple months ago, I have been continually educating myself through research for my blogs and through other avenues. I watched town hall meetings on television. I went to a local tea party rally. And even more intimidating to me, an apolitical person, I became a member of a new activist group who holds the same values and political views that I have, and whose members feel the same emotions.
I had not been aware that so many others had the same feelings that I was experiencing, not just in my town, but all across the country. So now we all know that there is momentum in this conservative movement to regain the country and protect it for our children and future generations. But we could be in danger of losing that momentum. We have to learn that in order to get our point across, as a group or an individual, we must use words and phrases that the liberals, particularly those in government will hear. They use their own terminology and spit out their politi-speak without ever engaging their brains.
"It's not what you say; it's what they hear." - Luntz Maslansky Strategic Research.
Nothing drove home the importance of using words and phrases that will be heard more clearly than when after enduring several grueling townhall meetings, Arlen Specter said on ABC's This Week, “I think we have to bear in mind, that although those people need to be heard and have a right to be heard, that they are not really representative of America in my opinion. We have to be careful here not to let those town meetings make the scene that influences what we do on health policy.”
Bless his ignorant heart! I decided that I needed to learn about how to really be heard. So, this article will give you a few of the words and phrases that you should substitute in your way of speaking so that you will be able to get and to hold the attention of those who literally are holding your future in their hands. These phrases are what are recommended by an expert wordsmith, Dr. Frank Luntz, in his books on this topic - Words that Work, and What America Really Wants... Really. I recommend that you get and read these books for more information on how to communicate effectively with politicians and your liberals friends and family. (Thank you, Dr. Luntz, for educating me to be a more effective communicator!)
These are terms that no longer are taken seriously by politicians. They see your lips move, but because you're using passe words, they don't hear you. So, by updating your terminology, you can be taken more seriously when speaking to politicians and liberals. As an example of what Dr. Luntz says about updated terminology, here examples that were pulled from his Words that Work:
- A used car is now pre-owned vehicle.
- A secretary is now an administrative assistant.
- A stewardess is now a flight attendant.
- Garbage removal is now sanitation services.
- Gay marriage is now same-sex marriage.
Choose words that inspire action:
- Instead of process, use progress.
- Instead of strategy use step-by-step approach.
- Automobile manufacturers rather than automobile companies.
- Fuel efficiency rather than fuel savings.
Simplicity is the most powerful way to communicate. In fact, the more simple the better. You will want to make your own signs. Pre-printed ones are not taken seriously - even Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer mentioned that one (but ignored the ACORN and SEIU ones!). Keep your message positive - and not negative - because this keeps the left from having anything to use against the movement. You should use some of these phrases on your signs:
- "Why?" - and if asked about your sign. Get them to explain their position.
- "Accountability - Why not?"
- "I have a right to be heard."
- "How much will it cost?" Stop wasting my money.
- "Who will $ for it?"
- "Before you sign it - READ IT."
- "Don't make promises you can't keep."
- "The IRS, the Post Office, Katrina... now healthcare?
Friday, October 2, 2009
Failed to Persuade IOC, Obama says, "We Played a Great Game."
...to the tune of $1.2 M for the overnight junket says one report. If it was a game, the score was Michelle + Oprah = O says another report.
The Obama luster has been coming off of President Obama here in the States lately. Now with a "last place showing", which was worse than anyone anticipated - even it he hadn't made the trip we wouldn't have finished in a worse position! In light of this "snub", it appears that perhaps the loss of luster is happening internationally as well. In my opinion, there are two primary reasons for this last place showing. One is a weak showing as the leader of the free world, and two is his dishonesty and untrustworthiness as was internationally revealed with the Missile Shield about face. And so quickly, too, after confirming his support for the program.
As I and others have pointed out, everything that Obama utters has a truth time limit on it. It may be the truth as he sees it at the instant it is spoken, but by the next speech, all bets are off and he may proclaim the exact opposite as truth. We have found that out here in the US with who he's puts in as czars and with the healthcare issue. Will he or won't he sign the healthcare bill if it doesn't have the public option. (I bet we all know what he'd do!) The world got a real good example of his vacillation with his smack in the face of Poland and other Eastern European countries and his concession to Russia over the Missile Shield program. And I'm sure the world is watching him as closely as we are here, but they're not being fooled like some Americans are.
So, Obama is playing a game, huh? Okay. Let's play out that analogy just one more time. Strike one was turning his back on a promise he made last spring to Eastern Europe to not leave them without the shield, vulnerable to attack. Strike two is his inability to persuade the IOC to hold the Olympics in Chicago. Strike three - do I hear healthcare coughing? Do I hear a death rattle?
The Obama luster has been coming off of President Obama here in the States lately. Now with a "last place showing", which was worse than anyone anticipated - even it he hadn't made the trip we wouldn't have finished in a worse position! In light of this "snub", it appears that perhaps the loss of luster is happening internationally as well. In my opinion, there are two primary reasons for this last place showing. One is a weak showing as the leader of the free world, and two is his dishonesty and untrustworthiness as was internationally revealed with the Missile Shield about face. And so quickly, too, after confirming his support for the program.
As I and others have pointed out, everything that Obama utters has a truth time limit on it. It may be the truth as he sees it at the instant it is spoken, but by the next speech, all bets are off and he may proclaim the exact opposite as truth. We have found that out here in the US with who he's puts in as czars and with the healthcare issue. Will he or won't he sign the healthcare bill if it doesn't have the public option. (I bet we all know what he'd do!) The world got a real good example of his vacillation with his smack in the face of Poland and other Eastern European countries and his concession to Russia over the Missile Shield program. And I'm sure the world is watching him as closely as we are here, but they're not being fooled like some Americans are.
So, Obama is playing a game, huh? Okay. Let's play out that analogy just one more time. Strike one was turning his back on a promise he made last spring to Eastern Europe to not leave them without the shield, vulnerable to attack. Strike two is his inability to persuade the IOC to hold the Olympics in Chicago. Strike three - do I hear healthcare coughing? Do I hear a death rattle?
Obama at Joint Session of Congress: Portrait of a Liar?
President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress a few weeks ago, you'll recall Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst calling something President Obama said about coverage of illegals a lie? One thing Obama wasn't called out on was one of this "horror" stories of insurance companies cancelling people’s coverage in several instances because of reasons that were just plain ridiculous. One example that he used... well, it turns out that one of these stories he told was not accurate.
The story Obama told of a woman named Robin Beaton from Texas, whose insurer dropped her health insurance just as she was about to have a double mastectomy. Obama claimed in his tale that it was because she forgot to declare a case of acne! Well, that was not the truth - not even near it. So, if it's not accurate and it's deliberately slanted to favor one's view.... it's a lie!
Yes, Ms. Beaton did lose her health insurance right before she was to have a double mastectomy; that part is true, but not declaring severe acne had nothing to do with it. The fact is that Ms. Beaton had a previous heart condition that she "forgot" to mention to the insurance provider. She also incorrectly stated her weight. When the insurance company discovered these discrepancies, they opened an investigation which occurred unfortunately right before her surgery. The timing of the investigation delayed her from having surgery right away and ultimately the insurer dropped her coverage. Another inaccuracy is that Obama also failed to include in his tale is that Ms. Beaton’s Congressman, Joe Barton (R), intervened and got her insurance coverage back and she was then able to have the surgery that she needed.
Though he campaigned on "it won't be politics as usual", what Obama is doing is using old and tired scare tactics to get what he wants. He is using inaccurate information about the lives of individual Americans (while accusing the Republicans of spreading "misinformation") to sell his socialized medicine program to the American people, and using who knows what other strong-armed tactics to push his program through the Senate. What we are finding out about Obama's Healthcare Program is that it's not about getting everyone insured; it's about giving the government more control over the personal affairs of Americans.
We have heard him in one speech saying, with finger shaking in the air, that he wouldn't sign any healthcare bill that didn't contain the public option. Then when his polls began to tank and the town hall meetings bubbled up so quickly against public option that he began to back pedal and even denied that was his intent... that the public option was only a "small slice" of the pie. This is one example of where in his speeches (practically back to back) he has said the polar opposite - not just a hedge, but the direct opposite - of what was previously stated. It's a lie - and it's caught on video tape as are others!
What about the "no lobbyists in my administration"? Mark Patterson, William Lynn, Valerie Jarrett, to name only a few, have histories as lobbyists. Even if lobbyists didn't get into the "official" Obama Cabinet, they are in places of influence in his administration. They have the President's ear - at his invitation! One more lie?
Transparency doesn't mean "open and revealing" to Obama. What about posting legislation online for everyone to know what is going on? That hasn't happened yet. Instead, bills are rushed through with no discussion or debate, and changes are being made in the dead of night that no one but the ones involved in the insertion or deletion is aware of. He said we would know what was in those bills before they came to a vote - another lie?
The latest example of this "Obama transparency" is the closing of Gitmo. No, not shutting down the facility, but closing the facility to reporters who are now limited in where they can go and basically what topics can be covered on that particular visit. In other words, if they schedule an interview on a certain topic, reporters can't change the topic of questioning nor can they inspect the conditions of the prisoners if that's not part of the topic at hand. And why? Earlier this year, the Ouigers (Chinese Muslim prisoners) made signs asking if Obama wasn't guilty of the same violation of human rights as China by holding them there. Someone in the Obama Administration didn't like the negative exposure. So as a result, freedom of the press has been squelched, and Obama's transparency has hit a new low. (ACLU is even getting involved on this one!) Where's the transparency? Apparently another lie?
So, these are only a few of examples of the portrait of a liar who happens to be our president.
Let's keep the pressure on for real transparency and honesty. We need it more now than ever because so many things are transpiring that are changing the direction of our country - things that are happening under the cloak of darkness or behind veils of deception. We have to voice our opposition to the threats to our liberties, and protect our Constitution from being re-written into a Socialist Agenda. And we must hold the President accountable for his promises and his statements and demand the truth from him - and from Congress. No more lies!
The story Obama told of a woman named Robin Beaton from Texas, whose insurer dropped her health insurance just as she was about to have a double mastectomy. Obama claimed in his tale that it was because she forgot to declare a case of acne! Well, that was not the truth - not even near it. So, if it's not accurate and it's deliberately slanted to favor one's view.... it's a lie!
Yes, Ms. Beaton did lose her health insurance right before she was to have a double mastectomy; that part is true, but not declaring severe acne had nothing to do with it. The fact is that Ms. Beaton had a previous heart condition that she "forgot" to mention to the insurance provider. She also incorrectly stated her weight. When the insurance company discovered these discrepancies, they opened an investigation which occurred unfortunately right before her surgery. The timing of the investigation delayed her from having surgery right away and ultimately the insurer dropped her coverage. Another inaccuracy is that Obama also failed to include in his tale is that Ms. Beaton’s Congressman, Joe Barton (R), intervened and got her insurance coverage back and she was then able to have the surgery that she needed.
Though he campaigned on "it won't be politics as usual", what Obama is doing is using old and tired scare tactics to get what he wants. He is using inaccurate information about the lives of individual Americans (while accusing the Republicans of spreading "misinformation") to sell his socialized medicine program to the American people, and using who knows what other strong-armed tactics to push his program through the Senate. What we are finding out about Obama's Healthcare Program is that it's not about getting everyone insured; it's about giving the government more control over the personal affairs of Americans.
We have heard him in one speech saying, with finger shaking in the air, that he wouldn't sign any healthcare bill that didn't contain the public option. Then when his polls began to tank and the town hall meetings bubbled up so quickly against public option that he began to back pedal and even denied that was his intent... that the public option was only a "small slice" of the pie. This is one example of where in his speeches (practically back to back) he has said the polar opposite - not just a hedge, but the direct opposite - of what was previously stated. It's a lie - and it's caught on video tape as are others!
What about the "no lobbyists in my administration"? Mark Patterson, William Lynn, Valerie Jarrett, to name only a few, have histories as lobbyists. Even if lobbyists didn't get into the "official" Obama Cabinet, they are in places of influence in his administration. They have the President's ear - at his invitation! One more lie?
Transparency doesn't mean "open and revealing" to Obama. What about posting legislation online for everyone to know what is going on? That hasn't happened yet. Instead, bills are rushed through with no discussion or debate, and changes are being made in the dead of night that no one but the ones involved in the insertion or deletion is aware of. He said we would know what was in those bills before they came to a vote - another lie?
The latest example of this "Obama transparency" is the closing of Gitmo. No, not shutting down the facility, but closing the facility to reporters who are now limited in where they can go and basically what topics can be covered on that particular visit. In other words, if they schedule an interview on a certain topic, reporters can't change the topic of questioning nor can they inspect the conditions of the prisoners if that's not part of the topic at hand. And why? Earlier this year, the Ouigers (Chinese Muslim prisoners) made signs asking if Obama wasn't guilty of the same violation of human rights as China by holding them there. Someone in the Obama Administration didn't like the negative exposure. So as a result, freedom of the press has been squelched, and Obama's transparency has hit a new low. (ACLU is even getting involved on this one!) Where's the transparency? Apparently another lie?
So, these are only a few of examples of the portrait of a liar who happens to be our president.
Let's keep the pressure on for real transparency and honesty. We need it more now than ever because so many things are transpiring that are changing the direction of our country - things that are happening under the cloak of darkness or behind veils of deception. We have to voice our opposition to the threats to our liberties, and protect our Constitution from being re-written into a Socialist Agenda. And we must hold the President accountable for his promises and his statements and demand the truth from him - and from Congress. No more lies!
Sunday, September 20, 2009
A Tax or Not A Tax - That Is the Question!
OMG! I can't believe that I actually can agree with George Stephanopoulos on anything, but certainly in raising this question, I do. On ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos which aired today, George interviewed President Obama and addressed the cost of Obama's healthcare program, and in particular addressed the mandate that everyone must be covered or face penalties.
Here's the transcript from Stepanopoulos's Blog:
President Obama signaled in our interview that he was prepared to address some of the concerns raised by key Senator Jay Rockefeller, who called the Baucus bill a "big middle class tax increase" this week.
That means he'll support more subsidies for middle class families.
But in our most spirited exchange, the President refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy health insurance is equivalent to a tax.
Here it is:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate...
OBAMA: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ...during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here -- here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average -- our families -- in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's...
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy...
OBAMA: No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase. Any...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the...
OBAMA: What -- what -- if I -- if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that's not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don't want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then...
See the rest of the interview here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/20/obama_rejects_notion_health_plan_would_be_a_tax.html
What was also revealed here is a prime example of how Obama directly contradicts himself in the same interview or speech (wouldn't that be considered lying - hmmm???) and how he uses word games to disguise or confuse the issues that are raised.) However, as is clearly demonstrated in this video, when pressed for which point is the truth, Obama becomes defensive and tries to turn the tables.
When I looked up the online Merriam-Webster definition of "tax", here's what it says:
1 : to assess or determine judicially the amount of (costs in a court action)
2 : to levy a tax on
3: obsolete : to enter (a name) in a list
4 : charge, accuse also: censure
5 : to make onerous and rigorous demands on
It sure sounds like a tax! Please note, this mandate is not applicable only to those who make $250,000 or more; it's on everyone! Regardless what it's called, it's still a large amount of money that will be required from middle-class Americans, and in effect, removes yet another freedom of choice from these individuals.
There is something else to note as well. Obama says that his healthcare plan will not increase the national debt. Of course he's aware that millions of people won't be able to either pay for insurance or pay the penalty. So, as many people are now understanding, in order to insure those individuals, the government will have to cover that expense by cutting Social Security, Medicare, and/or other programs, then the cost to continue those programs will in turn have to be raised elsewhere - perhaps a "new mandated compliance" or "tax" increase or further cuts in services. It's a classic "rob Peter to pay Paul" - then stealing from Paul to pay John! And so on.
If you take this mandated healthcare coverage "tax" and add it to the proposed Cap and Trade taxes on energy-producing companies which, of course, will be filtered down to middle-class tax payers, what you have is a huge amount of money that will be removed from individuals' incomes. Most middle-class people live paycheck to paycheck now, so how will they be able to handle these increased "tax" burdens? The answer is they can't.
This run-away governmental reform/restructuring and unlimited spending has got to stop! Those who oppose this mandated coverage (and cost for non-compliance), and especially those who will be hit the hardest, had better wake up and smell the coffee, and come together in opposition of these "taxes" before they are forced into abject poverty. I urge everyone who is concerned to get educated on the issues, share the facts with friends, and make their opinions known to their Congressmen. This fast track that the Obama Administration is on has got to be slowed so that people can become aware of the issues and express their opinions to their representatives - and hold them accountable - or it will very soon be too late for America.
Here's the transcript from Stepanopoulos's Blog:
President Obama signaled in our interview that he was prepared to address some of the concerns raised by key Senator Jay Rockefeller, who called the Baucus bill a "big middle class tax increase" this week.
That means he'll support more subsidies for middle class families.
But in our most spirited exchange, the President refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy health insurance is equivalent to a tax.
Here it is:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate...
OBAMA: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ...during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here -- here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average -- our families -- in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's...
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy...
OBAMA: No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase. Any...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the...
OBAMA: What -- what -- if I -- if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that's not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don't want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then...
See the rest of the interview here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/20/obama_rejects_notion_health_plan_would_be_a_tax.html
What was also revealed here is a prime example of how Obama directly contradicts himself in the same interview or speech (wouldn't that be considered lying - hmmm???) and how he uses word games to disguise or confuse the issues that are raised.) However, as is clearly demonstrated in this video, when pressed for which point is the truth, Obama becomes defensive and tries to turn the tables.
When I looked up the online Merriam-Webster definition of "tax", here's what it says:
1 : to assess or determine judicially the amount of (costs in a court action)
2 : to levy a tax on
3: obsolete : to enter (a name) in a list
4 : charge, accuse also: censure
5 : to make onerous and rigorous demands on
It sure sounds like a tax! Please note, this mandate is not applicable only to those who make $250,000 or more; it's on everyone! Regardless what it's called, it's still a large amount of money that will be required from middle-class Americans, and in effect, removes yet another freedom of choice from these individuals.
There is something else to note as well. Obama says that his healthcare plan will not increase the national debt. Of course he's aware that millions of people won't be able to either pay for insurance or pay the penalty. So, as many people are now understanding, in order to insure those individuals, the government will have to cover that expense by cutting Social Security, Medicare, and/or other programs, then the cost to continue those programs will in turn have to be raised elsewhere - perhaps a "new mandated compliance" or "tax" increase or further cuts in services. It's a classic "rob Peter to pay Paul" - then stealing from Paul to pay John! And so on.
If you take this mandated healthcare coverage "tax" and add it to the proposed Cap and Trade taxes on energy-producing companies which, of course, will be filtered down to middle-class tax payers, what you have is a huge amount of money that will be removed from individuals' incomes. Most middle-class people live paycheck to paycheck now, so how will they be able to handle these increased "tax" burdens? The answer is they can't.
This run-away governmental reform/restructuring and unlimited spending has got to stop! Those who oppose this mandated coverage (and cost for non-compliance), and especially those who will be hit the hardest, had better wake up and smell the coffee, and come together in opposition of these "taxes" before they are forced into abject poverty. I urge everyone who is concerned to get educated on the issues, share the facts with friends, and make their opinions known to their Congressmen. This fast track that the Obama Administration is on has got to be slowed so that people can become aware of the issues and express their opinions to their representatives - and hold them accountable - or it will very soon be too late for America.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
What's Good for the Goose...
Representative Charles Rangel (D), the House Ways and Means Committee chairman -- you know, the committee that writes the tax laws -- well, he owes a lot of money in back taxes, but he is now wanting to impose "double penalties" on the rest of us even if we make honest mistakes.
Somehow, he conveniently didn't report rental income from his vacation home he's owned in the Caribbean since 1988. He has now disclosed $75,000 in income over the past five years only, but what about those other years? His excuse for failure to pay his fair share on this income was: "While over the years I delegated to my staff the completion of my annual House financial disclosure statements, I had the ultimate responsibility." Ya think?
But there's more discrepancies in Mr. Rangel's income reporting. Seems he, or someone else, found somewhere between a half million and three-quarters of a million dollars tucked away in a checking account. Hmmm? That's not easy to forget about since you get monthly statements on this type of account, right? DOH! So he's now disclosed some of these "mistakes", but has he adjusted his income and revised his tax return and paid any additional taxes that were due, not to mention the penalties?
Wait, that's not all. There are some questions about nondisclosure of his sizable investments in JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer and BlackRock. WHAT? And what about not paying property taxes on a couple lots he owns in New Jersey that have been valued at "as much as" $15,000 each. Where can you buy land anywhere in the northeast at that price? Really, I'd like to know.
So, Mr. Rangel wants to punish you with double penalties for not paying all your taxes, even if there was an honest mistake made. And guess what, he's trying to get that clause slipped into the healthcare bill. Give me a break! Give us all a break! Everything gets back to that albatross healthcare bill, doesn't it?
I guess that's because this healthcare bill is so complex, no one would notice. You think? And since we already know members of Congress have a Golden Parachute in regards to their own healthcare and they won't be affected by this bill, perhaps the new IRS penalties wouldn't either?
Under the Congress's healthcare plan, they have full coverage and no out of pocket expenses. Yet, they are wanting the rest of us to have this healthcare plan that, when restructured according to their imposed guidelines, will produce reduced care quality. Never mind philosophically, just logistically that's true. You cannot provide the same quality health care we presently are getting to the majority of people when you add 45, 46, 47 million people (depending on which politician you listen to). There aren't enough doctors available. The daily calendars of doctors are already triple booked, as you can attest to by your long waits already. It stands to reason that you can't force that many more people into the system without additinonal doctors. Ah -- but I digress. Sorry.
As questions about Representative Rangel's tax indiscretions was coming to light, Republican Congressional leaders called for him to be replaced as chairman of Ways and Means saying that Mr. Rangel's tax indiscretions had grown to the point where he "cannot effectively carry out his duties as chairman."
In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D), Rep. John Boehner (R), the House Minority leader, wrote, "You, as the speaker of the House, must insist that Representative Rangel step down from his Ways and Means chairmanship pending an investigation of his ethical lapses." Her response through a spokesperson was, "The American people would be better served if Republicans would stop playing politics and allow the bipartisan ethics committee to do its job." Well, I'd like to see them actually do their job! Perhaps they're impeded by their own unethical behaviors or perhaps they're indentured in some way to their own parties. Whatever the issues may be, it takes an enormous amount of time to act against a member of the House, the resulting penalties for offense have generally amounted to a slap on the wrist or a censure. OUCH! That hurts, right? And the IRS doesn't even seize their assets.
And let's not forget that there's plenty of Senators that need to be investigated and properly reprimanded as well. Unethical behavior is not occurring in just one party; it's both. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have their share of offenders and they need to be held accountable. They have got to realize that they are not above the laws that they have imposed on the country at large.
So, I'm declaring that Congress has got to be reigned in. Let me reiterate that. Congress has got to be reigned in and held accountable. They have gotten so far out there that they aren't even orbiting the rest of us. They must be made to realize that they are not immune to prosecution for violations of the very laws they have written and enacted.
You know what? Congress works for us, the people. They really do. And most of them, because of having held office so long, have forgotten that. So, it's no wonder they feel as if they can write their "own ticket". They have learned how to fly just under the radar as they build wealth and political power. They get in bed with lobbiests. They barter their votes.... our votes.... for political gain. It's just wrong. It's all wrong. It's really unethical behavior all around. We must demand that they represent us and not the interests of lobbyists or their colleagues. Why are we allowing this behavior to continue?
Besides our own complacency, what gives Congressional members who violate the very laws they enacted immunity against prosecution? What gives them a lesser penalty than what we would be charged? In regards to these issues like Rangel's, it is up to us to get tough on Congress and demand that they adhere to these laws that they are imposing on us? All the laws. And if they don't, we need to make sure that the Ethics Committee will follow through with appropriate action. We all should be held responsible for our own actions and face the consequences for our irresponsible behavior. No one, regardless of who they are and what position they hold should get a free pass. This preferential treatment given to office holders in Washington, DC has got to stop! This has got to stop - now!
Somehow, he conveniently didn't report rental income from his vacation home he's owned in the Caribbean since 1988. He has now disclosed $75,000 in income over the past five years only, but what about those other years? His excuse for failure to pay his fair share on this income was: "While over the years I delegated to my staff the completion of my annual House financial disclosure statements, I had the ultimate responsibility." Ya think?
But there's more discrepancies in Mr. Rangel's income reporting. Seems he, or someone else, found somewhere between a half million and three-quarters of a million dollars tucked away in a checking account. Hmmm? That's not easy to forget about since you get monthly statements on this type of account, right? DOH! So he's now disclosed some of these "mistakes", but has he adjusted his income and revised his tax return and paid any additional taxes that were due, not to mention the penalties?
Wait, that's not all. There are some questions about nondisclosure of his sizable investments in JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer and BlackRock. WHAT? And what about not paying property taxes on a couple lots he owns in New Jersey that have been valued at "as much as" $15,000 each. Where can you buy land anywhere in the northeast at that price? Really, I'd like to know.
So, Mr. Rangel wants to punish you with double penalties for not paying all your taxes, even if there was an honest mistake made. And guess what, he's trying to get that clause slipped into the healthcare bill. Give me a break! Give us all a break! Everything gets back to that albatross healthcare bill, doesn't it?
I guess that's because this healthcare bill is so complex, no one would notice. You think? And since we already know members of Congress have a Golden Parachute in regards to their own healthcare and they won't be affected by this bill, perhaps the new IRS penalties wouldn't either?
Under the Congress's healthcare plan, they have full coverage and no out of pocket expenses. Yet, they are wanting the rest of us to have this healthcare plan that, when restructured according to their imposed guidelines, will produce reduced care quality. Never mind philosophically, just logistically that's true. You cannot provide the same quality health care we presently are getting to the majority of people when you add 45, 46, 47 million people (depending on which politician you listen to). There aren't enough doctors available. The daily calendars of doctors are already triple booked, as you can attest to by your long waits already. It stands to reason that you can't force that many more people into the system without additinonal doctors. Ah -- but I digress. Sorry.
As questions about Representative Rangel's tax indiscretions was coming to light, Republican Congressional leaders called for him to be replaced as chairman of Ways and Means saying that Mr. Rangel's tax indiscretions had grown to the point where he "cannot effectively carry out his duties as chairman."
In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D), Rep. John Boehner (R), the House Minority leader, wrote, "You, as the speaker of the House, must insist that Representative Rangel step down from his Ways and Means chairmanship pending an investigation of his ethical lapses." Her response through a spokesperson was, "The American people would be better served if Republicans would stop playing politics and allow the bipartisan ethics committee to do its job." Well, I'd like to see them actually do their job! Perhaps they're impeded by their own unethical behaviors or perhaps they're indentured in some way to their own parties. Whatever the issues may be, it takes an enormous amount of time to act against a member of the House, the resulting penalties for offense have generally amounted to a slap on the wrist or a censure. OUCH! That hurts, right? And the IRS doesn't even seize their assets.
And let's not forget that there's plenty of Senators that need to be investigated and properly reprimanded as well. Unethical behavior is not occurring in just one party; it's both. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have their share of offenders and they need to be held accountable. They have got to realize that they are not above the laws that they have imposed on the country at large.
So, I'm declaring that Congress has got to be reigned in. Let me reiterate that. Congress has got to be reigned in and held accountable. They have gotten so far out there that they aren't even orbiting the rest of us. They must be made to realize that they are not immune to prosecution for violations of the very laws they have written and enacted.
You know what? Congress works for us, the people. They really do. And most of them, because of having held office so long, have forgotten that. So, it's no wonder they feel as if they can write their "own ticket". They have learned how to fly just under the radar as they build wealth and political power. They get in bed with lobbiests. They barter their votes.... our votes.... for political gain. It's just wrong. It's all wrong. It's really unethical behavior all around. We must demand that they represent us and not the interests of lobbyists or their colleagues. Why are we allowing this behavior to continue?
Besides our own complacency, what gives Congressional members who violate the very laws they enacted immunity against prosecution? What gives them a lesser penalty than what we would be charged? In regards to these issues like Rangel's, it is up to us to get tough on Congress and demand that they adhere to these laws that they are imposing on us? All the laws. And if they don't, we need to make sure that the Ethics Committee will follow through with appropriate action. We all should be held responsible for our own actions and face the consequences for our irresponsible behavior. No one, regardless of who they are and what position they hold should get a free pass. This preferential treatment given to office holders in Washington, DC has got to stop! This has got to stop - now!
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
"Public Option" by Any Other Name...
I think this has to be a first for the US... this taking all the campaign promises a candidate made, removing the flowery phrases from them, and then ramming them through as legislation basically all at one time in rapid fire, no-discussion, "right now" time frame. These are very radical pieces of legislation which remove from us some of the most basic freedoms and at the same time heaps upon us the largest and irrecoverable indebtedness in our nation's history. It's no wonder that conservatives are up in arms... and very rightfully so.
Conservatives did get to celebrate a very, very short-lived "mini-victory" on the healthcare issue when they heard Kathleen Sebelius recently say that the public option in the national healthcare plan was not a "make or break" part of the plan, and when Obama himself said on Saturday that it was only "one sliver" of the overall plan, a direct about-face from their earlier statements. But we have to hold our horses. It's really not time to celebrate. Ms. Sebelius' recantation of her Sunday statements on Tuesday morning should stoke the embers of conservatives' outrage into full flames again. (Guess she got called on the carpet!) Listen up! Pay attention to these senators and representatives. Watch what they're saying and how they say it. If they get into their "congress-speak", then you know they're not listening to any opposing viewpoints. They're entrenched in their party loyalty and commitment to an ultra-liberal platform.
Do not be fooled. The healthcare public option is still very much alive and it is the intent of these liberal legislators to include this proviso whenever they vote on the final bill (presently scheduled for this fall). Whether or not they will have the gall to push it through "in the dark of night" as with other major legislation passed this year remains to be seen. Their intent is for government to be in control of every sector of American life. So, if they do vote in this healthcare control in the dark of night, or cloak it with the veil of "cooperatives", I sincerely hope and pray that every single one of them will pay with their seats when the time comes for re-election, regardless of their "esteem" or tenure, or political party.
In regard to the townhalls, what I'm also noticing is that these townhalls haven't changed the minds of any of these legislators yet. I'm not saying that some minds haven't been changed - those would be the minds of some in the general public. I believe the first few townhalls caused some who have been less involved in the democratic process to take a look at what this legislation really means and to become involved themselves and be heard. That is evidenced, I believe, by the mixture of the newer crowds which include old, young, middle-aged, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
The White House sure took notice. They know the truth, that this is the type of public outcry that can catch fire. That's why they've called out their "pitbulls" ACORN and SEIU to attend meetings in townhalls that are not in their own districts and to drown out, if not stamp out the effort. And it's been documented now that this is the "organized/busload" faction at these townhalls.
Senator Claire McCaskill of MO was the first Democrat to recognize these those attending the early townhalls as real people, not just an organized mob or some conspiracy. I watched part of her townhall meeting the other day. She said she couldn't understand why people were trying to all speak at the same time (and loudly) and called them rude. What she failed to understand is that these people have finally been given a voice. They've been silenced a long time and they feel desperate at this point. These townhalls offer them a limited time and place to speak up and ask their questions or present their concerns. Her real problem is that while she recognizes them as real people, she isn't listening to them with an open mind - because hers is closed to their complaints. To her they are of no value.
Multiply that by scores and scores of others behind this healthcare plan. Like her, other legislators are deceiving themselves that these townhall protestors are not really representative of America. They're dismissing these constituents who are speaking against what this administration is doing as as a few malcontents venting frustration, and some legislators are avoiding their constituents altogether. If they're not going to represent their constituency instead of their own interests, they truly need to go!
In regards to the healthcare proponent's newest mantra, "cooperatives", let me state my skepticism here about cooperatives. Be aware -- be very aware of wolves in sheep's clothing - or in this case, be wary of "Public Option" by another name. I do not believe that a government-backed cooperative plan for healthcare, which is similar to Medicare, is any better than a completely government-run public option. (We know what condition that Medicare and Medicaid are in, right?)
Here's why it's not better. Not long ago, by infusing funds, some bank and corporate butts were pulled from the proverbial fire. The result was that in those cases there was a government takeover of the financial and corporate entities which included a bypassing of the governing bodies of those entities - their own boards of directors - and included the daily oversight by the government in all aspects of their business including dictating what products would be produced and what salaries could be paid by these companies and who could head the organization. I don't believe Americans want the government telling any of us what care we can or cannot have access to, which is what the government will do if they're involved in a national healthcare cooperative.
Anyone who has any concern about government meddling in our private business had better sit up and take notice and not accept at face value these statements that the government will not be directing how these cooperatives are run and what policies and coverages will be made available. Government, especially this administration, cannot be allowed any further intrusion into our private business.
I am so thankful that we have been given the time for people to read this proposed plan as it is laid out in HR 3200. It is extraordinarily amazing to me how many Congressional members voted on the last few pieces of legislation like TARP 1 and 2, the Stimulus Package, and now HR 3200 without reading it or understanding the breadth and scope of its reach into private life of Americans. But now the general public is reading the bill, listening to the lies and distortions of what will and what won't be in the final bill, and has begun to express legitimate concerns about this particular legislation. But even more importantly, they're also making sure they're being heard on the other issues of concern like the monstrous debt that this administration has perpetrated on this and the next two generations through previously rushed and passed legislation.
What is so mind-boggling is that all the campaign promises to "fundamentally change this country", sans the flowery, feel-good phrases, is being accomplished in such short order. The tactical strategies of this administration have been to overwhelm and ultimately destroy the checks and balances within the system with an all-out push to get everything through while the country is enamored of the new administration during the honeymoon period. Thus far, they've succeeded. However, those of us who are concerned have been allowed a window of opportunity to be heard and to stop this run-away train. Hopefully, the country has regained its 20-20 sight instead of its post-election starry-eyed, enamored gaze, and now can see what is coming at them and will take action immediately to recapture and re-establish the greatness of America that has been the envy of the world. This may be the only opportunity we have to save our country from destruction - now that the honeymoon is over!
Conservatives did get to celebrate a very, very short-lived "mini-victory" on the healthcare issue when they heard Kathleen Sebelius recently say that the public option in the national healthcare plan was not a "make or break" part of the plan, and when Obama himself said on Saturday that it was only "one sliver" of the overall plan, a direct about-face from their earlier statements. But we have to hold our horses. It's really not time to celebrate. Ms. Sebelius' recantation of her Sunday statements on Tuesday morning should stoke the embers of conservatives' outrage into full flames again. (Guess she got called on the carpet!) Listen up! Pay attention to these senators and representatives. Watch what they're saying and how they say it. If they get into their "congress-speak", then you know they're not listening to any opposing viewpoints. They're entrenched in their party loyalty and commitment to an ultra-liberal platform.
Do not be fooled. The healthcare public option is still very much alive and it is the intent of these liberal legislators to include this proviso whenever they vote on the final bill (presently scheduled for this fall). Whether or not they will have the gall to push it through "in the dark of night" as with other major legislation passed this year remains to be seen. Their intent is for government to be in control of every sector of American life. So, if they do vote in this healthcare control in the dark of night, or cloak it with the veil of "cooperatives", I sincerely hope and pray that every single one of them will pay with their seats when the time comes for re-election, regardless of their "esteem" or tenure, or political party.
In regard to the townhalls, what I'm also noticing is that these townhalls haven't changed the minds of any of these legislators yet. I'm not saying that some minds haven't been changed - those would be the minds of some in the general public. I believe the first few townhalls caused some who have been less involved in the democratic process to take a look at what this legislation really means and to become involved themselves and be heard. That is evidenced, I believe, by the mixture of the newer crowds which include old, young, middle-aged, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
The White House sure took notice. They know the truth, that this is the type of public outcry that can catch fire. That's why they've called out their "pitbulls" ACORN and SEIU to attend meetings in townhalls that are not in their own districts and to drown out, if not stamp out the effort. And it's been documented now that this is the "organized/busload" faction at these townhalls.
Senator Claire McCaskill of MO was the first Democrat to recognize these those attending the early townhalls as real people, not just an organized mob or some conspiracy. I watched part of her townhall meeting the other day. She said she couldn't understand why people were trying to all speak at the same time (and loudly) and called them rude. What she failed to understand is that these people have finally been given a voice. They've been silenced a long time and they feel desperate at this point. These townhalls offer them a limited time and place to speak up and ask their questions or present their concerns. Her real problem is that while she recognizes them as real people, she isn't listening to them with an open mind - because hers is closed to their complaints. To her they are of no value.
Multiply that by scores and scores of others behind this healthcare plan. Like her, other legislators are deceiving themselves that these townhall protestors are not really representative of America. They're dismissing these constituents who are speaking against what this administration is doing as as a few malcontents venting frustration, and some legislators are avoiding their constituents altogether. If they're not going to represent their constituency instead of their own interests, they truly need to go!
In regards to the healthcare proponent's newest mantra, "cooperatives", let me state my skepticism here about cooperatives. Be aware -- be very aware of wolves in sheep's clothing - or in this case, be wary of "Public Option" by another name. I do not believe that a government-backed cooperative plan for healthcare, which is similar to Medicare, is any better than a completely government-run public option. (We know what condition that Medicare and Medicaid are in, right?)
Here's why it's not better. Not long ago, by infusing funds, some bank and corporate butts were pulled from the proverbial fire. The result was that in those cases there was a government takeover of the financial and corporate entities which included a bypassing of the governing bodies of those entities - their own boards of directors - and included the daily oversight by the government in all aspects of their business including dictating what products would be produced and what salaries could be paid by these companies and who could head the organization. I don't believe Americans want the government telling any of us what care we can or cannot have access to, which is what the government will do if they're involved in a national healthcare cooperative.
Anyone who has any concern about government meddling in our private business had better sit up and take notice and not accept at face value these statements that the government will not be directing how these cooperatives are run and what policies and coverages will be made available. Government, especially this administration, cannot be allowed any further intrusion into our private business.
I am so thankful that we have been given the time for people to read this proposed plan as it is laid out in HR 3200. It is extraordinarily amazing to me how many Congressional members voted on the last few pieces of legislation like TARP 1 and 2, the Stimulus Package, and now HR 3200 without reading it or understanding the breadth and scope of its reach into private life of Americans. But now the general public is reading the bill, listening to the lies and distortions of what will and what won't be in the final bill, and has begun to express legitimate concerns about this particular legislation. But even more importantly, they're also making sure they're being heard on the other issues of concern like the monstrous debt that this administration has perpetrated on this and the next two generations through previously rushed and passed legislation.
What is so mind-boggling is that all the campaign promises to "fundamentally change this country", sans the flowery, feel-good phrases, is being accomplished in such short order. The tactical strategies of this administration have been to overwhelm and ultimately destroy the checks and balances within the system with an all-out push to get everything through while the country is enamored of the new administration during the honeymoon period. Thus far, they've succeeded. However, those of us who are concerned have been allowed a window of opportunity to be heard and to stop this run-away train. Hopefully, the country has regained its 20-20 sight instead of its post-election starry-eyed, enamored gaze, and now can see what is coming at them and will take action immediately to recapture and re-establish the greatness of America that has been the envy of the world. This may be the only opportunity we have to save our country from destruction - now that the honeymoon is over!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
