The Trojan Horse

“Beware of Greeks bearing Gifts”

Or in this case, Democrats.

This saying comes from the Trojan War between the Greeks and the people of Troy.

The Greeks constructed a giant horse (horses were worshiped by the Trojans) and hit men inside because they were unable to breech the walls of the city after 10 years of siege.

Then the Greeks faked running away, leaving only the Horse.

The Trojans celebrated their victory and wheeled the giant horse into the city.

In the middle of the night the Greeks came out of the horse and slaughtered the Trojans.

Unable to breach the walls of public opinion on how great it would be for the government to decide who lives and who dies they retreated at the end of August and created the the Baucus Bill. A bill without the “Public Option” that had “bi-partisan support” (1 sad sucker of a Republican in Sen. Snowe).


And just now the Greeks (Democrats) have decided to re-brand their original goal yet again.

The Orwellian re-branding yet again of  Socialized National Care.

If you can’t dazzle them with your magnificence, baffle them with Orwellian BS.

And signal ahead of time that it was all a Trojan Horse.

In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as “the consumer option.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi’s side and used the term “competitive option.”

Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors.

“You’ll hear everyone say, ‘There’s got to be a better name for this,'” Pelosi said. “When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.”

So, since the government has no money unless they take it from you, where are they going to get it?

Or that’s right, they can just print and let someone else worry about the deficit later…

But this is the same Nancy Pelosi who said it wouldn’t raise the deficit?

So where are they getting the money?

One Answer: They don’t care.

Real Answer: From you. The Public. Bend over, the biggest enema in this country’s history is about to be shoved up your ass!

The entire Baucus Bill process was a sham.

Wonder if Sen. Baucus knew all along? Ya Think… 🙂

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), a centrist whose healthcare bill did not include a public option, said in a statement that he would support “any provision, including a public option, that will ensure choice and competition and get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate.”

This being the same guy who said that the public option had no chance.

Talk about a Dog and Pony show!

The Democrats want their Holy Grail (read Helen of Troy) and nothing shall defeat them.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday that Senate Democrats will include in the health care reform bill a government-backed health insurance program that allows states to opt out if they can come up with an alternative.

“I think it’s the fairest way to go,” Reid said of the “opt out” proposal.

The “opt out” proposal would set up a national insurance plan with government seed money and be run by a private, not-for-profit board. Under the proposal, states would have to prove they can provide comparable coverage in order to exit out of the federal plan. The plan would also negotiate rates with providers just like private insurance companies do, presumably keeping premiums on a level playing field with the private industry.

The measure is one of a host of different so-called public options being considered in the Senate. Though the public option seemed off the table in the chamber just one month ago, it gained traction in recent weeks as Democratic leaders floated versions meant to be more appealing to party moderates.

The key phrase being : “Under the proposal, states would have to prove they can provide comparable coverage in order to exit out of the federal plan”

Meaning if you the state doesn’t have something that is EXACTLY like the Government’s plan it can’t opt-out.

Which is precisely what was in HR3200, only it was the insurance companies ans employers.

Which is a Trojan Horse.

And if the state does manage to opt-out will the taxes be opted out as well?

I very much doubt it. Don’t you. The old double whammy. The State-run Government health care and the Government health care. Yeah, that’ll bring costs down. And it will be the State’s fault for opting out so they won’t be able to or they’ll have to opt-in later in defeat.

And won’t you have the lack of portability now that is one of the main root causes of this whole mess?

But that was never going to happen anyhow. That’s the Orwellian Trojan Horse, the “op-out” is the horse.

“I’m always looking for Republicans,” Reid said. To slaughter like the Trojans in the dead of night maybe. 🙂

After Reid spoke, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement in which President Obama congratulated Democrats for their “hard work on health insurance reform.”

“While much work remains, the president is pleased that at the progress that Congress has made. He’s also pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out. As he said to Congress and the nation in September, he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition,” Gibbs said.

Only your choice is mandatory and provided by the government and the competition is far from fair.

He has never changed his mind and never will.

The rest is just so much smoke.

So he has looked down from inside the horse to see if it’s safe to come out and slaughter the Trojans and take the city after a long siege.

So are you asleep, Trojans?





Hope Stranger than Fiction

When I titled a column after a Benjamin Franklin quote a few days ago I had no idea how prophetic it was.

Did you wake up, like I just did, to the stunned news that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize!

Yes. He did.


It’s not a joke or a set up for one.

The truth is vastly stranger than fiction.

The liberals in Norway were actually serious. (and he nominated 12 days into his presidency because that was the deadline).


U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for giving the world “hope for a better future” and striving for nuclear disarmament, in a surprise award that drew both warm praise and sharp criticism.

The decision to bestow one of the world’s top accolades on a president less than nine months into his first term, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, was greeted with gasps of astonishment from journalists at the announcement in Oslo.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” But critics — especially in parts of the Arab and Muslim world — called its decision premature.

The apology tour and the disasters at the UN and the G-20 and the snub at Copenhagen, the 10% unemployment, the loss of millions of jobs, the deficit is higher than ever and he wants to spend even more.

And we haven’t gotten to Cap and Trade and Global Warming yet!

Or Amnesty.

But he’s the bringer of  “Hope and Change”!

The Norwegians have obviously left reality and are  from a parallel universe, or they are even more deluded with their own hope-mania than US liberals.

Star light, Star Bright
The first star I see tonight
I wish I may, I wish I might
Have this wish I wish tonight.

So now, this once prominent award is giving it out on the PROMISE of peace.

Hope not results.

It feels good to hope doesn’t it! Hope will feed the world! Give Peace a Chance! 🙂

“He that lives upon hope will die fasting”- Benjamin Franklin

And  that is similar to the promise of :

President Obama: “you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.”

Now there was something for the people to hope for. Massive new government control social  programs that won’t cost you a dime!

Even P.T. Barnum would be aghast!

But the liberals actually believe this.

And so does the now-Nobel One.

Too bad we have to live in reality.

There are 5 Health care bills (2 in the Senate and 3 in the House) and they have to be melded into one bill. ALL of the house bills have the Public Option, only 1 of the Senate (Finance) does not (though the co-op is just an Orwellian way of restating it).

The cheapest one is the Finance Committee’s “conceptual” bill at just under $900 Billion. All the rest are over a Trillion.

And as pointed out yesterday, the government missed their target cost on Medicare (which will be broke in 8 years by the way) by a factor of 9.

Add to that, that we have no money. And have run up the deficit to historic proportions.  How to sustain that and not raise taxes on people making less than $250,000???


Call it something else. Like sneaking vegetables into your kids food…

Bury it in 1000’s of pages of legalese that not even the people voting on it can read. That’s how.

Oh, and make sure the Ministry of Truth (ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN et al) don’t say anything bad about it!



Candor about taxes is rare in Washington, so when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admits that Democrats may have to impose a huge new tax on the middle class to fund their spending ambitions, believe her.

Speaking with PBS’s Charlie Rose on Monday, Mrs. Pelosi mused publicly about the rising possibility of enacting a value-added tax, or VAT, as part of broader tax reform. “Somewhere along the way, a value-added
tax plays into this,” she said. “Of course, we want to take down the health-care cost, that’s one part of it. But in the scheme of things, I think it’s fair to look at a value-added tax as well.”

The allure of a VAT for politicians is that it applies to every level of production or service, rakes in piles of money, and is largely hidden from those who ultimately pay it—namely, consumers. With a $9 trillion 10-year budget deficit, $4 trillion in spending in fiscal 2010 alone, and a $1 trillion (at a minimum) health-care entitlement in the wings, Mrs. Pelosi knows that not even the revenue from the expiration of the lower Bush tax rates in 2011 will cover the bills.
Nearly every European country that has passed national health care has also eventually imposed a VAT, and it’s foolish to think the U.S. will be different.

“Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this. Of course, we want to take down the healthcare cost, that’s one part of it,” the Speaker added. “But in the scheme of things, I think it’s
fair look at a value- added tax as well.”

European Socialism demands European Taxes don’t you know. (Sounding like Thurston Howell III) “It’s so continental”


Mrs. Pelosi is the second prominent Democrat to call for a VAT in recent weeks (along with other financial gurus). John Podesta, an adviser to President Obama and president of the very liberal Center for American Progress, called in
September for a “small and more progressive” VAT. Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Podesta argue a new tax is necessary to address the nation’s exploding financial liabilities, as if those liabilities exploded on their own.
Of course, VATs always start “small” and get bigger. The bills for the Democratic spending blowout are coming due even sooner than advertised, and the middle class will pay, whatever Mr. Obama’s campaign promises.(AP)


Using data for 2008, a VAT of just 1% would raise an added $63 billion. Make it “just” 5%, and it’s a $315 billion annual tax hike on all Americans — or roughly $2,670 on every household, including the poor and middle-class.

To sell the idea to gullible taxpayers, politicians play down these problems, focusing instead on tax “efficiency” and the idea that the VAT is a low rate applied against a broad base of taxpayers. (IBD)

And it would “lower” taxes! (some liberals will say)  If it was to replace the income tax, maybe, but not ON TOP OF IT!

Oh, and It doesn’t stop there. Why would it. When you’re on a roll, and Hope is your guide…

To make the plans “deficit neutral” aka offset massive spending with massive cuts and taxes…

From Dick (You know, the former Clintonista) on The Finance Committee Bill:

In a new amendment to the health care bill, they propose to limit the deductibility of medical expenses on income taxes.

Now, taxpayers may deduct any medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of their Adjusted Gross Income. Obama and Baucus want to raise that threshold to 10% as long as the taxpayer is under 65.

Eight million Americans are sick enough and poor enough that they have to pay more than 7.5% of their income in medical expenses. And it is these folks that the liberals Obama and Baucus plan to tax! Six million of them earn less than $75,000 a year!

For a family earning $75,000 a year and facing out-of-pocket medical bills of $7, 500, this proposal would cost them about $600 a year in extra taxes.

And let’s remember who it is that they are taxing. This proposal affects people whose incomes are so limited and whose medical costs are so high that they exceed 7.5% of their pre-tax income.

Their proposal literally hopes to raise $20 billion over ten years by taxing sick people.

The Democrats defend their proposal by saying that it would discourage health care spending. But nobody deliberately spends 7.5% of their income on medical costs unless they are pretty sick and needy.

The poor will not have to pay it because they are eligible for Medicaid

That’s genius! To prevent people from costing you to much Tax them when they are sick and really do need it so they won’t use it again! And like Rep. Grayson said (only he was talking about his bi-partisanship with Republicans) “they want you to just die”

Brilliant! Absolutely Brilliant!! (sarcasm in case you didn’t know)

But it’s not a tax increase, per se, you just end up paying more if you are gravely sick, Orwell would be proud of you our NOBEL President.

Originally, the Democrats continued their war on the elderly by proposing to tax everyone who spends more than the 7.5% threshold on medical costs. But they retreated when it became clear that six million elderly would be hit with the tax. Now they just sock it to eight million sick, middle income Americans.

This tax, and their desire to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $500 billion, makes Obama and Baucus unlike any Democrats I have ever known. Democrats, at least when I worked for Clinton, defended the elderly and the sick rather than cut the former and tax the latter.

Ah, screw the elderly, they’ll be dead soon anyhow!  (again, sarcasm!)

“The American health-care system is in crisis, and workable solutions have been blocked for years by deeply entrenched ideological divisions. Sen. Daschle brings fresh thinking to this problem, and his Federal Reserve for Health concept holds great promise for bridging this intellectual chasm and, at long last, giving this nation the health care it deserves.” —Senator Barack Obama (IL) on Sen. Daschle’s Book, Critical.

(Daschle’s solution lay in the Federal Reserve Board, which has overseen the equally complicated financial system with great success.  A Fed-like health board would offer a public framework within which a private health-care system can operate more effectively and efficiently—insulated from political pressure yet accountable to elected officials and the American people.–See Below)

According to Daschle (the first nominee for HHS but undone by being a tax cheat),” doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

And this was in the “Stimulus” Bill:

One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446).

Sounds like Daschle’s board doesn’t it? 🙂

So we cut Medicaid. We destroy Medicare Advantage. We outlaw HSA’s (Health Savings Accounts– it’s in HR3200 folks!) We tax the sick. We make it Mandatory. We have a Government monitoring agency. We sick the IRS on you if you don’t comply. And we still don’t cover everyone, according to the CBO!!


Shear Genius!

And well worth that Nobel Prize for Hope!

And Vastly better than we have now.

Thank you, Mr President and Member of Congress for saving us from the evil capitalists!

“Health-care reform” would slash Medicare — and not just Medicare Advantage — to subsidize insurance for much younger people who can’t qualify for Medicaid and thus, by definition, aren’t poor. And the supposed protector of poor old people will stand by, content with its own cut of the action.

Is this what liberal Democrats have come to?

And you get a one-size fits all plan to boot. That way you get charged premiums for things that you could biologically produce, like guys being covered for pregnancy or women for prostate exams. And since we are coveing you for every procedure all the time, the premium will match it.

And since they will reimburse hospitals and doctors with Medicare-level rates (vastly lower, thus SAVING MONEY :)) the private insurance companies will be run out business because it will be unprofitable to continue.

Leaving just Mama Government in charge.

But don’t worry, it “cheaper” this way… 🙂

Public Option uber alles!

Trust us, we’re for the government and we are here to save you! 🙂

Into the VAT

President Obama: “you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.”

A Series of quotes and excerpts follow, see if you can connect the dots:

“Most of the health-care reform will be paid from money already being spent, and it will not increase the deficit,” the DNC repsonse statement reads. (NY Post)

Now think about that for a moment, they will pay for reforms with money ALREADY being Spent.

Think about it.

So in comes (pun not intended) a potential new friend. Imported for the more “civilized” Europeans:

A VAT is tax on consumption similar to a national sales tax. But it’s not just paid at the cash register. It’s levied at every stage of production. So all businesses involved in making a product or performing a service would pay a VAT. And then the end-user — such as the retail customer — ponies up as well.


Since being elected, Obama has raised cigarette taxes and has advocated raising healthcare taxes, energy and small business taxes, in addition to corporate taxes. What’s more, economic advisers like Larry Summers seem eager to get rid of all the Bush tax cuts, not just those on so-called wealthy Americans.

And it’s also no secret that economists love the idea of a VAT. It promotes savings over consumption, and its hidden nature may mean it has less behavioral impact on taxpayers. Conservative economist Bruce Bartlet puts it this way, “As a broad-based tax on consumption, it creates less economic distortion per dollar of revenue than any other tax–certainly much less than the income tax.” Indeed, a VAT is part of cash-strapped California’s newly proposed tax reform.

Liberals love the idea of a VAT because it’s, well, so European — also because it does raise tons of revenue to expand government. And that is what Obama wants: more revenue to pay for bigger government. Is a VAT better than the soak-the-rich approach favored by Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel? Sure. Of course, the concern is that a VAT would be in addition to new soak-the-rich taxes. (James Pethokoukis-Reuter At a symposium today in Washington, Alan Greenspan predicted taxes would be headed higher and thought a VAT would be the ‘least worst’ way of doing it.

…former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. In a two-part interview with Charlie Rose airing yesterday and today(Oct 1-2), Volcker says that if Washington can’t get spending under control, either a VAT or a carbon tax would be effective revenue raisers. “Those are two big ones,” he says.

“There’s going to have to be revenue in this budget,” said Podesta, Clinton’s former chief of staff and co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s transition team, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing today (Sept 28th).

A so-called consumption tax would “create a balance” with European and Japanese economies and “could potentially have a substantial effect on competitiveness,” said Podesta. Value- added taxes in Europe and Japan encourage savings by taxing consumption.

Podesta said such a tax may be regressive, but can be balanced by exempting some products and using “the money to support low-wage workers.”

Yesterday Oct 1, the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank with close White House ties, holds a conference on the rising national debt. While speaker after speaker — Paul Krugman, Roger Altman, CAP President Podesta (again), Laura Tyson — admits entitlement spending must be reduced, they also agree that taxes must be raised. Altman suggests $400 billion in new tax revenue is needed almost immediately to calm financial market fears, and a VAT would be a great way of doing it. That’s $400 billion a year, by the way, not over ten years.

Podesta is also president of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank closely allied with the White House.

WSJ Online:

“As progressives we need to debate the policy merits and likelihood of enacting a range of options — including designing a small and more progressive value-added tax, changes to the corporate tax code, and taxing upper income earners beyond reversing the Bush tax cuts,” Mr. Podesta said in a statement Tuesday.

White House economic adviser Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner refused to rule out middle-class tax increases during Sunday talk-show appearances over the summer. “We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically,” Mr. Geithner said on ABC’s “This Week.” “And that’s going to require some very hard choices.” But White House press secretary Robert Gibbs disavowed the comments.


This is also the conclusion of one Washington insider with ties to the White House economic team: ‘Does this all add up to a trial balloon? Of course, it’s a trial balloon. And I expect the administration will propose major tax reform, including a VAT.’

CNN Money:

“Tax rates could be raised in the existing system, but that would be extremely inefficient,” said Rudolph Penner, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and now an institute fellow at the Urban Institute, a public policy research group.Penner in a paper about the VAT, “Tax reform might raise revenues more efficiently, but that is excruciatingly difficult politically.”

“That leaves the possibility of a brand new tax, and a VAT is a very likely candidate,” he added.

Democrats say it’s regressive, meaning it would hit lower-income people hardest since they tend to spend all of their income on consumption purchases that could be subject to the VAT. Low-tax advocates, such as conservative Republicans, see a VAT — on top of the current tax system — as harmful.

But given the depth of the nation’s fiscal needs, there aren’t many attractive options.


An increasing number of influential Democrats and fiscal-policy experts have signaled that lawmakers will have to get a handle on the deficit. And they recommend seriously considering the creation of a value-added tax (VAT) on top of the federal income tax

Bruce Bartlett, columnist:

For example, a recent National Bureau of economic Research study by Lawrence Summers and James Hines argues that globalization makes it harder for national governments to tax income and recommends that taxes be shifted more towards a consumption base. Summers is, of course, director of the National Economic Council in the White House.

A Wall Street Journal report from this morning indicates that a group with close White House ties, the Center for American Progress, will be recommending a VAT as part of a fiscal reform initiative to reduce budget deficits. It will be opposed by the usual right-wing suspects. But as I have explained on many occasions, they are fools because if we don’t raise revenues through a consumption tax they will inevitably be raised by soak-the-rich taxes that will be far more harmful to the economy.

To offset the income tax reduction, the commission would create a wide-ranging business tax that would encompass virtually every corner of California capitalism, including the service sector — lawyers, engineers, business consultants — that currently are not taxed. Such businesses are viewed as growth industries.

Baltimore Sun:

“We are now closer than ever before to finally passing reform that will offer security to those who have coverage and affordable insurance to those who don’t,” Obama said.

Lower Income Taxes, but create Health Care taxes, and a consumption tax on everything.

Will he and the Democrats in Congress risk a political backlash by trying to pass another big tax hike during some future session? In a word, yes. It’s an inescapable element of their broader political program, and they believe it’s the right thing to do. As with health care, they believe that whatever short-run political costs they must bear, they’ll be seen as heroes in the long run by moving America closer to the European-style welfare state they consider the necessary outcome of social progress.(NRO)


Stick you toe in the VAT of warm water little piggie, it’s not boiling……………YET!

Did I Do that?

CNN’s Candy Crowley tried to prompt former President Jimmy Carter to explain his charge of racism against opponents of President Obama on Thursday’s American Morning, but the Democrat tried to worm his way out of what he said. She started,“Mr. President, let me ask you first- domestically, you made some remarks recently about how you felt about the protesters that were protesting against President Obama. You said, overall, you thought the protesters were upset that there was a black president, that there was racism involved.” The former president interrupted, “By the way, that’s not what I said.”

“I said, those on the fringe element that had vituperative personal attacks on President Obama- those were the ones that I included.” Crowley attempted to read her paraphrase again, but Carter shot back, “No, it wasn’t. If you read the remarks carefully, you’ll see that’s not what I said. I said those that had a personal vituperative attack [sic] on- on President Obama as a person- that was tinged with racism, but I recognize that people who disagree with him on health care or the environment, things like that- the vast majority of those are not tinged by racism.”

Well, that makes me feel better, don’t you feel better that we all took his exact words and ran with them. Many, like Bill Cosby even agreed with him.

But we all we’re wrong. That’s not what he said. 🙂

(See my blog on “It’s Racism, Stupid” also:

But he did say it that way, though he didn’t say it that way, just ask him.

Mr President (former) Have you ever heard of the Internet? 🙂

CARTER: I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American. I live in the south and I’ve seen the south come a long way and I’ve seen the rest of the country that shared the south’s attitude toward minority groups, at that time particularly African-Americans, that that racism [unintelligible word] still exists. And I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people, not just in the south, but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance and grieves me and concerns me very deeply.

Crowley replied to Carter’s version of what he said, “So you think they were taken out of context. You didn’t mean that most of those protesters out there were racist.” Carter answered, “I meant exactly what I said. That I actually said, if you look at the transcript, is just what I just repeated to you.”

Orwellian Doublethink lives!

Much like our current President and Congress.

On Sept. 12, 2008, while on the campaign trail in Dover, N.H., Obama said, “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

So the “sin” Taxes proposed, like the Soda Tax, the “excise” taxes in the Baucus Bill, the IRS provisions in HR3200 are what then?

State of The Union Speech:

In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.  But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people:  if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.

Not one dime. But more than a dime, well…

Employees forced to purchase insurance under the Baucus plan would be affected in two different ways:

  1. They will be required to pay a certain percentage of their income to purchase insurance; and
  2. Some workers will see their businesses taxed by the government to cover their newly subsidized insurance.

Since the mandate is effectively an increase in employers’ labor costs, workers can expect to see their wages and hours of work shrink as businesses pass on these increased costs to employees.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, businesses will likely reduce low-income workers’ hours or even eliminate such positions entirely. In addition, when filling low-income jobs, employers will have a strong incentive to hire workers who are covered under someone else’s insurance plan, such as teenagers covered under their parents’ plans, those with Medicaid, or single workers who would not need a family plan to comply with the mandate.

The Baucus plan will also likely have a negative effect on employee pay and could potentially lead to increased prices for consumer goods. In a recent survey of human resource executives, 86 percent of respondents said they would pass costs of health care on to employees. Other respondents said they would cut jobs, and over a third would pass on the cost of the increase to customers through higher prices. These survey findings are consistent with other research that shows that businesses pass on higher mandated labor costs to employees–often transferring as much as 88 percent of the new costs.

The Senate Finance Chairman mark expands coverage but at a steep cost to businesses. These costs are quickly passed to employees. The bill also increases the marginal cost of work for semi-skilled employees as each dollar they earn means they must pay more out of pocket for their own health insurance. Ultimately, the Baucus reform “plan” will reduce the affected employees’ incentive to work as well as their likelihood of finding a new job in the future. (

Oh, then there’s always the IRS fines and wage garnishments, leading to to possible criminal prosecution,if you don’t comply with the Mandatory insurance.

But that’s not a tax. It’s enforced by the IRS, but it’s not a Tax.

So where does the government think the employers are going to get the extra money from?

Oh, that’s right, that’s not a “tax” either.

It just has the same effect.

The Baucus plan imposes a 35 percent excise tax on health insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. Roughly half of Americans, mostly middle-class, would be affected. There are also “fees” on prescription drug companies, medical device manufacturers, and clinical laboratories. This is simply a way of hiding taxes, and will result in higher health care costs that will be passed on to consumers.

But they didn’t do it directly, right… so you can’t mistake it for a “tax”… 🙂

But, even Unions hate it.


Senator Finance Commitee Chairman Max Baucus, whose health care proposal has been panned by both Democrats and Republicans, received more criticism today from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the largest public employee and health care workers union in the United States, which said his proposal to tax insurance would affect an unfair percentage of Americans.

The union’s critique comes as more than 100 Democrats sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter today opposing the tax on high cost insurance, arguing that the tax would fall on middle-class union members with comprehensive health plans.

Baucus’ proposal to tax insurance companies offering plans worth more than $21,000 for families working in the private sector.

Under a plan pushed last month by Finance chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., insurers providing high-cost plans — dubbed “Cadillac” plans by some critics — that cost more than $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family would pay a 35% excise tax on the excess amount. The excise tax is now at 40% in the Finance bill.

You see, here’s the problem with “soak the rich”.

Union groups have zeroed in on the proposed  stiff taxation of so-called Cadillac plans — i.e. often decent benefits generated after hard-won union negotiations.

The Congress and the President are going after “rich” people’s “Cadillac” plans. Problem is, many of them are not “the rich” but Union Members, the core base of the Democratic Party.

Whoops did I do that! 🙂

The same was done 40 years ago when the Alternative Minimum Tax was enacted to soak the rich, but it’s gotten so onerous that the Democrats themselves were campaigning against it now  because it was too much of burden on middle class taxpayers.

The AMT was originally designed in 1969 to prevent the nation’s millionaires and billionaires from using tax loopholes to pay zero income tax. That year, 155 very wealthy taxpayers paid no federal tax whatsoever. This year, if the law remains as it is currently crafted, the AMT would, through bracket creep, apply to as many as 25 million taxpayers, including those making in the $85,000 to $250,000 range, depending on how many deductions they claim (the more deductions, the more likely the AMT comes into play). (Huffington post)

So what did Congress do, it included a “patch” for those incomes in the Stimulus Package.

You know that package that was going to “create 3 million jobs”…

Whoops again! Did I do that?

Now, under a provision pushed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., insurance plans for workers and retirees in high-risk jobs would not be subject to the tax unless they cost more than $9,850 for an individual and $26,000 for families.

In addition to miners, those protected by the new measure include firefighters, law-enforcement officers, members of rescue squads and ambulance crews, construction workers and people employed in forestry, fishing and agriculture, excluding those who work in food-processing.

“These workers do their job honorably, day-in and day-out, and put their lives on the line for our safety,” Rockefeller said in a statement. “It is imperative that we not tax their plans. Otherwise, they stand the risk of seeing a reduction in health benefits – and that is not acceptable. Ever.

So he just happens to pick industries in his state to exclude. How magnanimous of him.

Just Like Harry Reid and his Nevada Medicare Funding.

But don’t worry, there won’t be any Pork allowed!

The President said so, and you believed him didn’t you?

“new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review.”

Whoops! Did he say that!? 🙂

President Obama: “you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.”

So I guess since it’s more than a single dime it’s ok then? 🙂

Mind you this is the same Sen. Rockefeller who proposed the Soda Tax.

The President, in an interview with Men’s Health magazine released yesterday (Sept 8th), said he thought taxing soda and other sugary drinks is worth putting on the table as Congress debates health care reform. (NYDN)

President Obama: “you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.”

Well, it wasn’t going to be a dime…:)  (3 cents actually)

“For some people it’s going to be a heavy lift,” said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. “We’re doing our best to make sure it’s not an impossible lift.” Added Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: “We have no certainty as to whether or not these plans are going to be affordable.” Both are on the Senate Finance Committee, which finished writing a health care bill on Friday. A new online tool from the Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the predicament. The Health Reform Subsidy Calculator provides ballpark estimates of what households of varying incomes and ages would pay under the different Democratic health care bills. The legislation is still a work in progress and the calculator only a rough guide. Nonetheless, the results are revealing. A family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class. But that family would pay $7,110 to buy its own health insurance under the plan from the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. The family would get a tax credit of $3,970 to help pay for a policy worth $11,080. But the balance due — $7,110 — is real money. Maybe it’s less than the rent, but it’s probably more than a car loan payment. Kaiser’s calculator doesn’t take into account co-payments and deductibles that could add hundreds of dollars, even several thousand, to a family’s total medical expenses. A Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates total expenses could average 20 percent of income for some families by 2016. (AP)

President Obama: “you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.”


Another problem is that people won’t be able to get the insurance tax credits immediately after the bill passes. To hold down costs, the assistance won’t come until 2013, after the next presidential election.

So if you don’t vote for me, the evil republicans will take away your rebate candy, baby. 🙂

And you get the pay for it in the meantime. Aren’t you lucky…

President Obama: “you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.”

“Read My Lips” Anyone? 🙂

Acknowledging the affordability problem, the Baucus’ committee voted Friday to exempt millions of people from the requirement to buy insurance and reduce penalties for those who fail to do so. But that would mean leaving at least 2 million more uninsured — not very satisfying to Democrats who started out with the goal of coverage for all.

“I think we’ve got to do something about it ,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “We’ve got to make sure health insurance is affordable for the middle class.”

And this is the guy who said the more people know about the Public Option the more they want the government to be in control of your health care.

And if you exclude millions of Americans from the requirements because it would unaffordable, then you aren’t covering everyone and you still have people who are uninsured. And those people not excluded, does that mean it’s affordable for them? 🙂

Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.

“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Carper said,He likened it to the “gibberish” used in credit card disclosure forms.”

But don’t worry, the Ministry of Truth will be there to help you out. After all, the President promised transparency…:)

Last week, the Finance Committee considered an amendment offered by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) that would have required the committee to post the full actual language of the proposed legislation online for at least 72 hours before holding a final committee vote on it. The committee defeated the amendment 13-10.

Whoops do I do that? 🙂

President Obama: “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”

The Republicans proposed a simple amendment, “No tax increases on anyone making less than $250,000? just like the President promised.
Sen Baucus said it “wasn’t a serious amendment” and the Democrats voted it down.

Whoops Did I do that!?

Sen John Cornyn:

I offered an amendment that would require Members of the Congress to enroll in the Medicaid program should this legislation become law. Not surprisingly, it was overwhelmingly rejected. Over the last week it has become apparent that some are more concerned with forcing through bad legislation to meet arbitrary deadlines than they are with getting it right. Never was this more apparent than late last night when I discovered that the Congressional Budget Office had made a $600 million mistake when estimating the cost of one of my colleagues’ amendments. The Chairman had hurriedly forced this amendment through on a voice vote before this error was discovered. I offered a common sense amendment that would require us to know the true cost of any amendment before we vote on it. It was met with great resistance and voted down.

But don’t worry, they got your back.

They are transparent.

And they really mean what they say and say what they mean.

Just ignore the plethora of hidden knifes coming at you from behind!!

They didn’t do that either! 🙂

It just Don’t add up!

Things that just don’t add up.


“Don’t get sick. If you have insurance, don’t get sick. If you don’t have insurance, don’t get sick. If you’re sick, don’t get sick. Just don’t get sick.”

“The Republican health care plan: don’t get sick,” he said. But, he added,”The Republicans have a back up plan in case you do get sick … This is what the Republicans want you to do. If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly!” U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL)

This is how you forge a bi-partisan agreement. This is how you listen to both sides.

And when asked to apologize by the Republicans, he declined.

Ah, civility….

“In a signal moment in the increasingly fractious debate over reforming the nation’s sprawling health-care system, Senate Finance Committee members rejected two amendments to create a public option on votes of 15 to 8 and 13 to 10.” More: “Despite the setback for advocates of a public option, debate over such a plan is certain to continue. Sens. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who offered the amendments that were voted down Tuesday, have vowed to keep the issue at the forefront as the debate unfolds.(MSNBC)

The up or down vote on the Public option goes down, but that doesn’t deter them.

Sen. Snowe (R) has proposed a public plan that would go into effect only in states where private companies weren’t offering affordable enough alternatives. She said late Tuesday that she was discussing the so-called “trigger” compromise with committee Democrats and hadn’t decided how to proceed.

Isn’t that the same thing in the end? A Horse of a different color is still a horse!

“Mr. Obama’s public option died a bipartisan death yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee. What’s left is a package of “reforms” that are mere trite extensions of what we’ve been doing for decades. That is, piling up mandates on private insurers and then lying that this somehow isn’t driving up the cost of health insurance; piling up subsidies for health consumption and then lying that this somehow isn’t responsible for runaway health-care spending.”(WSJ)

The truth is not worth anything these days.

As I’ve said it before, it’s not Bi-partisanship. its BY Partisan’s ship.

But this ship will be back.

The Holy Grail of Liberalism will not go down that easily. It is merely a Battle and not the War.

War is Peace (and security).

Freedom is slavery.

In a surprising vote Tuesday, ten Democrats voted to add a public option to the most conservative of the five health insurance reform bills working their way through Congress. That’s just two votes short of passage.

This robust support for the public option — in what most observers consider the most conservative committee in the Senate signals a sea change in Congressional opinion toward the public option.(Huffington Post)

Mind you, what he is disingenuously referring to is the 2nd amendment made by Sen Schumer to try a more watered down version of the same bill that got more votes than the hardcore one.

So they are warriors of the faithful.

“The more the American people hear about the public option, the more they like it,” said Democratic Sen Charles Schumer after the vote.

Never give up. Never Surrender!

“It was the biggest setback to date for liberal Democrats, but did not kill the possibility of a public option being included in final legislation,” Public option supporters will get several more bites at the apple: They can offer more amendments on the Senate floor (assuming, as most observers do, that Harry Reid will not include this element in the chamber’s combined bill). Or they can fight for it during conference negotiations, since the House is still expected to include some form of public plan in its bill.” (LA Times)


Mind you, Sen Rockefeller is also the same one who proposed the Soda Tax on all you fat slobs who drink too much and get fat and unhealthy.


Yes, your elected representatives are listening to you! 🙂


“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” Obama said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program. “Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.”

St. Petersburg Times Fact Checker:

Patients First, a project of the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, issued a news release that played up the possibility that people who didn’t buy health coverage could end up in prison.

“Health Care Mandate Will Require Imprisonment and Fines for Americans Who Can’t Afford to Purchase Insurance or Pay Hefty Government Penalties,” and its first sentence referred to “a draconian health care measure under consideration in Congress that would imprison uninsured Americans who fail to pay a penalty for not buying health insurance.”

We were struck by the statement that the bill would “require imprisonment and fines” for nonpayment of the tax. Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code suggests that violators would have to go to jail. It’s simply one of the possible penalties that could be assessed.”

So it could happen. You just object to “will” happen. And you notice they changed the tenant of the statement also from will to would. So they are arguing a point with the wrong text. And then suggest that because they will not be sent to prison, but could be, and it’s one of the options, that the statement is not true.

Gotta love that Orwell.

So it’s true, but not the way you stated it and not the way we re-stated it differently, but it is still true! 🙂

The headline would have been correct if it had said the mandate “could require imprisonment or fines.” In fact, further down, the text of the release reports more accurately that “under the health care bill outline[d] in the Senate Finance Committee, uninsured Americans who fail to pay a stiff penalty for not purchasing insurance would face up to one year in prison or a $25,000 fine.” That part of the release, with its “or,” acknowledges that violators would likely face just one of those penalties. And it’s worth noting that, as with other violations in which people have refused to pay taxes, sending someone to prison is an extreme measure used as a last resort.

Not that there isn’t a Tax, or fines, or other IRS actions. Just not jail, maybe.

To put this in perspective, the IRS audited almost 1.4 million tax returns in 2007. That year, the number of confinement sentences was 2,123, meaning that less than two-tenths of 1 percent of audits resulted in prison time.
And based on past prosecution trends, it’s highly unlikely that someone would be sentenced to prison for a debt as small as $1,900, tax lawyers said.

So that’s why it’s ok for the IRS to come after you and throw you in prison if you don’t have Health Insurance.

It’s not likely to happen. It’s less than 1%. No big deal.

But the actual uninsured in this country is less the  3% of the population. Yet that is a “crisis”.

Initially, the Senate version would have had families above 300 percent of the federal poverty level pay $3,800 a year if they did not have health insurance. Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., later agreed to lower that amount by half, to $1,900. Backers hope that no American actually pays the tax; they want to see people spending those dollars on health insurance instead.

Still, Ensign is among those who balk at the idea. “Some people hold the Constitution pretty high in their lives, and if they believe that this thing is unconstitutional and they then say … ‘I choose not to have health insurance. I’m not going to buy it,'” Ensign said at a markup of the contentious bill. “We could be subjecting those very people … to fines or the interpretation of a judge potentially all the way up even to imprisonment.”

Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code, titled, “Willful failure to file return, supply information or pay tax.”

And all the bills say that your Health Insurance would be on your IRS tax Returns.

So it’s a Tax, that isn’t a tax, that could get you imprisoned, but since that’s unlikely, don’t worry about it so much…

Trust us, we are from the government and we are here to help you! 🙂


Reid issued an announcement publicly showing that he is using his position to protect Nevada.
“I spoke to the chair of the Finance Committee and he assured me that this bill will be improved for Nevada before he takes it to the committee for final mark-up next week,” Reid said in a statement released this week. “Let me be very clear, I will not bring a health insurance reform bill to the Senate floor that is not good for Nevada.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secured a deal today that would give Nevada full, 100 percent funding in the Senate health care bill for an initial expansion of Medicaid.

The deal would give Nevada full funding for the first five years of the program — an effort to ease concerns that Nevada would be unable to afford the federally-mandated expansion of care for the poor.

So if this is so “neutral” and so wonderful why is the Senate Majority racing to have his state and his state alone “protected” from the effects of the bill for the first five years??

Under the health care bills before Congress, state Medicaid programs, which now primarily cover low-income children, parents, seniors and people with disabilities, would be expanded to include a new segment of the population — poor, childless adults.

The group makes up 21 percent of the uninsured nationwide, and a slightly larger share in Nevada. Many of them are poor, which the government defines as individuals making less than $14,400 a year.

With nearly 470,000 uninsured in Nevada and a soaring jobless rate adding to those ranks, uninsured, childless adults are a vast group. The state won’t hazard a guess at the number.

Under the legislation, the federal government would help states pay to cover them, but the states would have to chip in.

In Nevada, the money would come from the state’s sagging general fund.

One Washington estimate is that Nevada’s current $800 million Medicaid bill would grow by 5 percent, about $40 million annually.

But it won’t add the the deficit if we are all in the same single-payer system. Trust Us!

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, an early supporter of President Barack Obama and one of the state’s most liberal legislators, understands the state’s dilemma.

“One of the best ways to attack the high percentage of uninsured is to increase the number of eligible participants on Medicaid,” Leslie said. “But even if the state has to pay 10 percent of the cost, it’s going to be very difficult. We have no money.”

And the other motive:

Now Mr. Baucus has modified the bill to spare Nevada and three other states, and Mr. Reid, who faces a potentially difficult race for re-election next year, is taking credit for getting a “major increase” in federal money for his state. (NY Times)

Trust me, I’m from the government and we want to help you!

Mr. Baucus revised his bill to give extra help to certain “high-need states.” The states were not named in the bill. But only four states meet the criteria: Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and Rhode Island.

The changes came at the expense of other states, including California, Florida and Illinois, which would see significant increases in state Medicaid spending under the new formula.

But they want to help all Americans!

Trust Us, we know what’s good for you!

All the major health care bills moving through Congress would expand Medicaid, adding perhaps 11 million people to the rolls, the Congressional Budget Office says.

The Democratic staff of the Finance Committee estimates that, under existing law, state spending on Medicaid will total $1.7 trillion from 2013 to 2019. That figure could increase by $33 billion under Mr. Baucus’s bill. But when the new costs are combined with savings elsewhere in the bill, Democrats say, state spending would increase by only $22 billion, or 1.3 percent, over the levels now projected.


  • Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront.
  • Requires additional cuts if savings are not realized.

So the costs will go up, except for Nevada, but it won’t add anything to the deficit having the government paying for it.

Our Big Brother would never lie, right?

“In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.  But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people:  if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.” State of The Union Speech.

So what are we left with:

“Senator Reid should know that this legislation is not only bad for Nevada, but it is bad for the rest of the United States,” Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia said.

Apparently not.

The Finance Committee has rejected several Republican amendments that would have blocked the expansion of Medicaid if it was found to impose additional costs on states.

The Finance Committe has also rejected amendments to make Congress take the same deal that they want us to have. They have voted down amendments banning illegal immigrants specifically.

They have voted down amendments to ban federal funding of abortions.

Bunning Open Records Amendment: would have required the full language and full price tag to be available on the Internet for three days before Congress votes. (That’s your “transparency” folks!)

Hatch Medicare Advantage (MA) Amendment: would have suspended MA provisions if the CBO finds that (contrary to the President’s promise) seniors are going to lose coverage or benefits.

Kyl Anti-Gag Order Amendment: would have allowed MA insurers to inform seniors of their likely loss of benefits.

Ensign/Cornyn/Kyl Malpractice Lawsuit Amendments: would have provided relief from lawsuits.

Update: oct 1st:

The Republicans proposed a simple amendment, “No tax increases on anyone making less than $250,000” just like the President promised.

Sen Baucus said it “wasn’t a serious amendment” and the Democrats voted it down.

But don’t worry, it’s for your own good and it’s “fair” and “honest” and “open” to debate.

And you’ll love the final product, I guarantee it! 🙂
And we still have Global Warming to deal with you evil human scum!

And Amnesty for all those poor unfortunate new poor Democrats…I mean Illegal Aliens.


We are from the government and we are here to protect and serve.

The Fine Control

You nasty, evil, selfish pig. You don’t have insurance. That’s a detriment to the society as a whole. That must be stopped.

And we’ll make sure you have insurance.  Period.

Your choice is, Mandatory Insurance or Mandatory Taxes and Penalties, maybe even criminal prosecution.

Rejoice, Citizen.

It’s for your own good.

And if you have insurance now, well, if you lose it we’ll come after you too!

Americans who fail to pay the penalty for not buying insurance would face legal action from the Internal Revenue Service, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

The remarks Thursday from the committee’s chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, seems to further weaken President Barack Obama’s contention last week that the individual mandate penalty, which could go as high as $1,900, is not a tax increase.

Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would “take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings.”

Ensign pursued the line of questioning because he said a lot of Americans don’t believe the Constitution allows the government to mandate the purchase of insurance.

“We could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously, because they believe in the U.S. Constitution, we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, all the way up to imprisonment,” Ensign said. “That seems to me to be a problem.”

Ensign’s argument , however, wasn’t persuasive to the committee — which rejected an amendment from Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) to eliminate the individual mandate.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to preserve the mandate.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.”(Politico)

But is it even constitutional: (and do Democrats care…)

Without regard to one’s views about the health care legislation promoted by President Obama and currently being redrafted by Sen. Max Baucus, everyone is entitled to expect that the task will be carried out with competence and integrity — also with dignity and a high regard for the intelligence of the American people.

Further, even if everyone agreed that the proposed federal interventions in health care were consistent with “best medical practice” and produced the best possible medical care at the least price, all these federal actions would still have to meet constitutional standards.

The controversial tax that both Obama and Baucus would impose on people who do not buy health insurance appears to be a “direct tax” on persons that is unlawful under Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution, which requires that “direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their Numbers . .. .”

In addition, Art. 1, Sec. 9, says: “No capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken … .”

The only exception to the constitutional prohibition against unapportioned direct taxes is for the federal income tax, which was authorized by the 16th Amendment — but the direct tax on the uninsured is not an income tax.

Sen. Baucus claims that the tax on the uninsured is an “indirect” excise tax — like the federal gasoline tax — that does not have to be apportioned. But Sen. Baucus appears to be in error. An excise tax is a tax on a “thing” (such as a commodity or a license). That is why an excise tax is classified as “indirect.”

People who choose not to buy insurance are not things.

They are people. And the tax is imposed directly on them in exactly the same way as a direct income tax, except that in this instance, the tax amount does not depend on the size of the person’s income.

This constitutional defect in one of the linchpin elements of the health care legislation was not brought to light for public discussion by either the White House or the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.(IBD)

We’re from the government and we are here to save you…

So who are the uninsured:

“The uninsured . . . live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare.” President Obama.

Actually, of the 46 million people the census estimates don’t have insurance, some 20 million have incomes above average and could afford to buy it, according to a study by former Congressional Budget Office Director June O’Neill.

The President in his speech to Congress said “30 Million” because 10-15 million are ILLEGAL ALIENS.

When Republicans proposed requiring proof of citizenship, the Democrats twice voted that down in committee.

(When Republican proposed amendment to specifically outlaw the funding of abortions under these plans, Democrats voted them down)

So that brings it down to 30 million-ish.

More than 17 million of the uninsured make at least $50,000 per year (the median household income of $50,233) – 8.4 million make $50,000 to $74,999 per year and 9.1 million make $75,000 or higher. Two economists working at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that 25 to 75 percent of those who do not purchase health insurance coverage “could afford to do so.”

An estimated 13.7 million are poor. They are eligible for Medicaid — the state health care programs for the poor. But many, too, are illegals — about 8 million.

Though they’re eligible, research from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association suggests as many as 14 million uninsured Americans qualify for public coverage, but don’t enroll. And as many as 6 million are enrolled, but don’t report it to the government, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis.

That leaves about 5 million people with no care.

By the way, according to the Census Bureau, America now has 37 million people in poverty. But Medicaid enrollment covers 55 million people — at a cost of $350 billion a year.

Based on this, no one should be without care. Which leads us to wonder: Is nationalizing our health care system really necessary to take care of people who already have care available to them? (IDB)

So this whole thing is really about 5 million people, not 46.

And if the “waste fraud and abuse” of Madicare is going to yield as much as 2/3 of the Baucus’s planned $900 Billion costs why not just use that to pay for the 5 Million people and leave the rest of us the hell alone!

Because that’s not the real end game. That’s why.

We’re from the government, and we are here to control who lives and who dies.

That’s your choice.

And if you don’t like it, tough. We, the government, don’t care.

You are not to be trusted.

We Know better.

You will comply. Or else.

“Many other Americans . . . are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.” Obama.

This statement betrays a profound ignorance of what insurance is. If you can buy insurance after you’ve gotten sick, it’s not really insurance, is it? And why have insurance at all? It’s an incentive to simply wait until you get sick, then make someone else pay for it.

To see how absurd this is, let’s take the same concept to auto insurance. Why not let people buy insurance after they get in an accident? One reason, of course, is it leads to fiscal and personal recklessness. (IBD)

And much higher premiums.

• “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage . . . every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.”

As noted above, the bulk of the 30-plus million uninsured actually can get coverage — and in many cases, qualify for existing government programs. But how about 14,000 Americans losing their coverage each day? A little math shows this is just a scare statistic.

Multiply it out, and it comes to 5.1 million people losing coverage in a year. Sound scary? Consider that, according to the census, 46.3 million Americans don’t currently have insurance — 600,000 more than last year. That means that, along with 14,000 Americans losing their coverage each day, another 12,400 Americans are signing up for it — even in the middle of a brutal recession.

Those who lose insurance do so usually because they’ve lost a job. Most are without insurance for a couple of months or so. (IBD)

A Scare tactic, from the “never waste a good crisis” Presidency. Never…. 🙂

So is the “solution” worse than disease?

Medicare is already spending more than it is taking in through payroll taxes. Medicare trustees expect the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund part of the program to be insolvent by 2019. From now through 2017, it will need $342 billion of taxpayers’ money in order to keep paying hospital insurance benefits alone. Over the next 50 years or so, Medicare’s shortfall is expected to hit $37 trillion — an almost unbelievable deficit nearly three times our current GDP.

If Medicare has done one thing, it’s proved that government programs always cost more than their original projections. Citing the runaway costs of Medicare is an argument against, not for, further government intervention.

“Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.”

Shawn Tully, Fortune editor at large, dug into the legislation and found that for “Americans in large corporations, ‘keeping your own plan’ has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you’ll get dumped into the exchange,” a government program in which heavily regulated private companies sell insurance policies.

Workers who buy their own insurance or begin coverage through small businesses will also be forced into the exchange if their plans change in any way, because it’s then considered a new plan. Since plans generally change policies every year, Tully says, “it’s likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.”

According to a July study by the Lewin Group and the Heritage Foundation, health reform could cause as many as 88 million Americans to lose their private, employer-based coverage.(IBD)

It’s in the bills, especially HR3200, Page 16.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the administration’s health care czar, feels about treating those who need the most help.

“When the worse-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating (treatment) to the better-off is often justifiable.” (IBD)

Also, reading Former Senator Tom Daschle’s book  (Critical: What We Can Do About the American Health-Care Crisis) on the subject is instructive. (He was the first Health and Human Service Nominee, he was derailed by being a Tax Cheat).

For example, in Critical, Daschle argues that Fed Health “could help define evidence-based health benefits and lower overall spending by determining which medicines, treatments, and procedures are most effective—and identifying those that do not justify their high price tags.” Daschle adds, “We won’t be able to make a significant dent in health-care spending without getting into the nitty-gritty of which treatments are the most clinically valuable and cost effective. That means taking a harder look at the real costs and benefits of new drugs and procedures.”

Sounds like rationing to me. And the government gets to decide what you get, if  it’s valuable to society to do so.

End of life counseling, anyone?

Charles Krauthammer:

Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of Obamacare by eliminating “hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud” from Medicare.

That’s not a lie. That’s not even deception. That’s just an insult to our intelligence. Waste, fraud and abuse — Meg Greenfield once called this phrase “the dread big three” — as the all-purpose piggy bank for budget savings has been a joke since Jimmy Carter first used it in 1977.

Moreover, if half a trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of Medicare, why wait for health care reform? If, as Obama repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the budget, why hasn’t he gotten started on the painless billions in “waste and fraud” savings?

Obama doesn’t lie. He merely elides, gliding from one dubious assertion to another. This has been the story throughout his whole health care crusade. Its original premise was that our current financial crisis was rooted in neglect of three things — energy, education and health care. That transparent attempt to exploit Emanuel’s Law — a crisis is a terrible thing to waste — failed for health care because no one is stupid enough to believe that the 2008 financial collapse was caused by a lack of universal health care.

So on to the next gambit: selling health care reform as a cure for the deficit. When that was exploded by the Congressional Budget Office’s demonstration of staggering Obamacare deficits, Obama tried a new tack: selling his plan as revenue-neutral insurance reform — until the revenue neutrality is exposed as phony future cuts and chimerical waste and fraud.

Obama doesn’t lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads — so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.

Slickness wasn’t fatal to “Slick Willie” Clinton because he possessed a winning, near irresistible charm. Obama’s persona is more cool, distant, imperial. The charming scoundrel can get away with endless deception; the righteous redeemer cannot.

And, as the New jersey school video shows, and The Campaign Blitz, The Cult of Personality is what we have.

And if you don’t agree you’re a “racist”, a “sexist”, and “Un-American.”

Rejoice in the “open” debate and representative government.

Big Brother is watching you.

It’s For Your Own Good

Tax Increases are for your own good. But they aren’t tax increases, they are just saving you from the evil capitalist scum….

“For us to say you have to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” Obama said in response to persistent questioning, later adding: “Nobody considers that a tax increase.” (ABC’s “This Week…”)

“What it’s saying is … that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you any more than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance,” he said. “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.”

Asked again about critics calling the requirement to pay for health insurance a tax increase, Obama said: “My critics say everything is a tax increase.”

So it’s your choice. Your Freedom. To have no choice. You must do this for the common good of all. Stop being a selfish bastard.

So what if you can’t afford it, the government will force you to buy their plan. But that’s not an increase in your expenses.  No, not at all.

And the Soda and snacks tax bill is for your own good also. “a three-cent tax on sodas as well as other sugary drinks, including energy and sports drinks like Gatorade.” (CBSNews)

3 cents here, 3 cents there, no biggie. Right.

It’s for your own good.

American’s are too fat.

Americans are too unhealthy.

Americans need to led into a healthier life style.

They are dragging down the health of the world.

That is good for the community as a whole.

People are the problem.

YOU are the Problem.

Not spending Trillions we don’t have. Not overhauling something that 85% of people are happy with.

Not massive tax increases that are tax increases.

Not 10% unemployment.


YOU are the problem.


And we’re from the government and we are here to help you…

We’ll Mandate your health insurance.

We’ll tax anything that is “bad” for you or not in the interest of society as whole, in our humble opinion.

We know best.

You are a burden to society.

You overweight, coffee-drinking, smoking, no-exercise, lazy, climate destroying, greedy bastard!

How dare you!

It’s not “fair” to the rest of us to have to put up with your crappy choices. So they need to be made for you.

Mold the behavior to better suit the needs of the community-at-large.

Mold the language and thought to suit the needs of the community-at-large.

But gently.


It’s not fair that you cost others money.

(mind you we still aren’t talking about Illegal Immigrants!) 🙂


“When it comes to health-care spending, we are on an unsustainable course that threatens the financial stability of families, businesses and government itself,” Mr. Obama told reporters.

So let’s make it mandatory, fine people who don’t comply and tax behaviors we find that are not in their best interest.

But he won’t raise taxes on any making less than $250,000.

A recent Gallup poll showed that 60 percent of Americans don’t think healthcare reform will be possible without a tax hike.

“I can still keep that promise because as I’ve said, about two-thirds of what we’ve proposed would be from money that’s already in the healthcare system but just being spent badly” (Obama on”Face The Nation” last weekend)

And, a priori, this new system will never do that! No….Not Ever. I Promise!

We’re from the government and we are here to help you.

And the people are the problem, not the waste fraud and abuse itself.

If waste,fraud and abuse will pay for 2/3 of the reforms, why not make that the reform then?

Because, it doesn’t reform the people.

And the people are the problem.

They are greedy, self-interested, lazy. They must be forced to do what’s good for them, or else.

We are from the government and we are here to make you better.

The Fines layed in HR3200 aren’t there.

The IRS provisions are not there.

Baucus Bill :

“Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.” And the rest of the bill is clear that the Finance Committee does, in fact, consider it a tax: “The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.” (Politico)

As much as $3,800 per family.

The House bill also refers to the penalties for not carrying insurance as a tax. It calls for a “tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage” and amends the tax code to implement it.

Just like HR3200 does.

But this tax is not a tax because I said so. So what if it’s written there in the bills. It’s tax that will save you money!

Obama strongly denied that the mandate amounts to a tax increase – saying it was no different than requiring people to have auto insurance and charging a penalty if they don’t. He also said it was important for everyone to have insurance so that people who do carry insurance don’t have to shoulder the load for people who don’t. The excise tax is designed as an enforcement mechanism to ensure people will carry insurance. (ABC)

It’s for your own good.

But what about Illegal Aliens? 🙂

Obama also told Stephanopoulos that Americans are already facing a “tax increase” from soaring insurance premiums and argued that health reform will curb the future costs and actually save Americans money.

“But I think that they were concerned about whether or not this was actually affordable. If you’re saying to people, you’ve got to get health insurance but they can’t actually afford it and they have to pay a penalty if they don’t get it, then that’s a pretty big burden on middle class families. That’s a concern I share — making sure that this is affordable.But the first thing we’ve got to understand is you’ve got what is effectively a tax increase taking place on American families right now. The Kaiser Family Foundation report just came out last week. Health care premiums went up 5.5 percent last year, at a time when the rest of the economy, inflation was actually negative. So that is a huge bite out of people’s pockets.”

So this is a tax is better than the premium increases that are a “tax” and in in the long run will SAVE you money… 🙂


A TAX That Saves you Money!

The More Taxes, the more savings!


And yes, mandatory insurance would be a burden for the middle class if  they weren’t saving us from the evil insurance company’s premium increases!

Oh, thank you, Mr. President.

I’m sure if I can’t afford my health insurance that making it mandatory and fining me if I still don’t have it will save me from the evil insurance companies I wasn’t paying to begin with!


You know they say if you throw a frog in boiling water, he will jump out immediately. But if you put a frog in cold water and then boil it, he will boil.

Are you feeling the heat yet, froggie?  🙂