Happy Birthday ObamaCare

Happy Birthday, ObamaCare. Six months old today and raising the cost of medical care, restricting patient options and causing employers to drop workers three years before even being fully implemented.

Congratulations!!

Steve Kelly

Take Minnesotan Gail C., who hoped to offset a monthly premium increase by raising her deductible. Instead, her insurer advised that such a change would not comply with ObamaCare provisions. She could make the adjustment but would no longer have guaranteed rates and could face penalties for exercising what used to be her freedom of choice.

When Conservatives for Patients’ Rights launched in February 2009, we called for patient-centered, free-market health care reform based on Four Pillars — choice, competition, accountability and personal responsibility. Instead, ObamaCare removes choice from patients and doctors, strangles market competition, provides no accountability from government and relegates personal responsibility — and control — to the ash heap of history.

Worse, it includes purchase mandates forcing individuals to buy health care — and employers to provide it — or face stiff fines.

Citing constitutional and statutory grounds, 43 states have now either joined Florida’s lawsuit to oppose ObamaCare, instituted their own legal challenges, filed legislation against coverage mandates or have citizen initiatives in play.

As far back as June 2009, national polls showed that Americans opposed key provisions by more than 55%. A poll taken by CNN hours before the March 2010 vote found that the majority of Americans did not support the bill. Sixty-two percent felt it would increase health care costs, and 70% thought it would swell the deficit. They were right.

The will of the people remains clear. An August poll by the liberal-leaning Kaiser Family Foundation found that 48% of independent voters held unfavorable views, and a recent Rasmussen poll shows that 61% of likely voters and 74% of “mainstream” voters openly favor repeal. With $500 billion in Medicare cuts heading to states and $600 billion in taxes and penalties aimed at consumers and businesses, Americans know that ObamaCare is a train wreck.

Government actuaries are predicting that health care costs could soon rise 20%, faster than if government had done nothing. A Congressional Budget Office analysis released just before the March vote indicated that premiums could double in six years.

Americans don’t need a 14-digit calculator to predict what happens when insurers must immediately take all comers to coverage — even those who got sick yesterday — without higher premiums. Restrictions make private coverage unsustainable. Which, of course, was always the endgame of ObamaCare.

As midterm elections approach, voters’ aversion to ObamaCare is apparent. Many House and Senate Members who voted for the plan are preparing for pink slips. In Arkansas, 64% opposed the “yea” vote of incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln, and 61% approved the “nea” of GOP Rep. John Boozman, who is challenging her. Boozman leads Lincoln by 17 points.

While many incumbents lost to primary challengers, the 34 House Democrats who voted against ObamaCare survived. And it’s impossible to find pro-ObamaCare references in any campaign advertising.

More significant than actual election results, these prevailing political trends demonstrate the resurgent will of the American people. All is not lost; that which has been done can be undone.

In early 2009, CPR met with the editorial board of a major national newspaper. After hearing our Four Pillars and mission to oppose government control of health care and the public option in particular, board members said we were wasting time and money as the debate would be over and government health care passed within 90 days.

Fifteen months later, ObamaCare barely passed, and only when conservative Democrats caved to leadership pressure and the offer of tantalizing political goodies. And it passed without the public option, previously considered a given. Such miscalculations show political elites to be fundamentally at odds with values like choice, competition, accountability and personal responsibility.

The people were right last March and are still right today. Because groups like Conservatives for Patients’ Rights embraced real, constructive reform, ObamaCare was passed over the objections of a public educated on its details and the consequences for American health care. Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have needed to pass it to know what was in it, but America didn’t.

The people didn’t want it then, don’t want it now and have always had the power to go back. They want patient-centered reforms that lower cost and expand choice without government control. And they want Obama-Care repealed. Americans will not cease efforts to that end, and no elected official is safe until it’s done. In this republic, the will of the people ultimately prevails. (IBD)

There is ample evidence to show that ObamaCare will cost jobs, raise health care costs and saddle future generations with crippling debt.

But don’t you dare blame the increases in premiums and costs on Obamacare!

Straight from the Horse’s Mouth, or in this case a Jackass (Donkey).

HHS Secretary Sebelius has already threatened them, but now Sen. Max “I never read the bill” Baucus (and Senate Health Care Bill author) is threatening them.

NEW YORK, Sept 20 (Reuters) – Two Democratic U.S. senators are demanding more transparency about premium increases from health insurers and warning them against blaming higher rates on a newly passed reform law. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana and Commerce Committee Chairman John Rockefeller of West Virginia said they sent a letter to the five largest health insurers by enrollment registering their concerns over increases for next year.

“I want health insurance companies to be transparent and honest when increasing premiums  (You First. :))— and health care reform is simply not to blame,” Rockefeller said in a statement.

“Health plans will continue to do everything they can to implement the new law in a way that minimizes disruption and keeps coverage as affordable as possible for individuals, families and employers,” Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans organization, said in a statement. “Political attacks won’t do anything to make coverage more affordable for working families and small businesses that are struggling in a slow economy,” Zirkelbach said.

But Politicial attacks is all the Democrats now how to do. Especially 40 days from an election it’s all they know how to do.

“Health insurers should be transparent about the assumptions they use to arrive at their premium increases,” the senators wrote. “If an insurer thinks it can blame the enactment of the Affordable Care Act for its rising premiums, it is surely mistaken.”

Don’t blame the actual cause, because that’s not politically advantageous to us. So we want you to lie, just like we do and sugar coat it, suck it up, and give them the Orwellian Bovine Fecal Matter that we have been shoveling in their direction for 2 years.

Or at the very least shut up and do as you are told.

Health Czarina and Grand Vizier, the Great and Powerful OZ Says so or else we will bring about our terrible wrath upon you! 🙂

You wouldn’t want to be on their Enemies List now would you? 🙂

ObamaCare gives Ms. Sebelius’s regulators the power to define “unreasonable” premium hikes, which will mean whatever they decide it will mean later this fall. She promised to keep a list of insurers “with a record of unjustified rate increases” and then to bar them from ObamaCare’s subsidized “exchanges” when they come on line in 2014. In other words, insurers must accept price controls now or face the retribution of a de facto ban on selling their products to consumers four years from now.

This is nasty stuff and an obvious attempt to shift political blame for rising insurance costs before the election. It’s also an early sign of life under ObamaCare, when all health-care decisions are political and the bureaucrats decide who can charge how much for a service or product.

Democrats built this system and they now own it politically. The least they could do is take credit for its consequences. (WSJ)

Senator Max Baucus recently admitted that he never read the Obamacare legislation.  But that hasn’t stopped him from trying to re-write it after the fact, asserting that Congress intended to give people even less choice of private health plans than described in the bill!

This overreach should encourage states that are trying to block Obamacare: It’s going to be even worse than we initially thought.

Obamacare reduces choice of health plans by giving government the power to control the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) – the amount of dollars an insurer spends on medical care divided by the total premiums. Under Obamacare, policies that cover large businesses will have to achieve an MLR of 85 percent, while those for small businesses and individuals will have to achieve an MLR of 80 percent. This sounds simple but leaves many issues unresolved.

An important one is the treatment of taxes: Taxes are not medical care, but nor are they under health plans’ control. So, Obamacare excludes taxes from total costs used to calculate the MLR. Senator Baucus leads a group of senators who now assert that what they meant to pass was a bill that exempted some taxes from health plans’ MLR calculations, but not corporate income taxes.

If it prevails, Baucus’ flawed notion will lead to an immediate reduction of choice of health plans.  Suppose two insurers of the same size compete in a region’s large-group market. They earn premiums of $1 million each. They each spend $850,000 on medical claims, thereby achieving an MLR of 85 percent. One insurer is for-profit, earning a profit of 4 percent ($40,000), and pays combined federal and state corporate income tax of 45 percent ($18,000). Its MLR automatically shrinks to 83.5 percent and Obamacare shuts it down.

Even without Baucus’ newly invented interpretation, the MLR is deadly for increasingly popular consumer-directed plans. Suppose a traditional policy costs $4,000 and spends $3,400 on patient care, for an MLR of 85.00. With the consumer-directed policy, the patient controls $800 more of the medical spending than with the traditional policy, through a higher deductible, and his premium goes down by $800. In this case the MLR goes down to 81.25 ($2,600/$3,200). There is no real difference, but the accounting looks worse, and Obamacare shuts it down. (In fact, consumer-driven plans have lower total costs than in this simple example, because cutting out the middleman and giving more health dollars to patients to control themselves motivates them to get better value for money.)

MLRs are also irrelevant because the insured and their employers tend to choose health plans based on other criteria—likely invisible to politicians and bureaucrats. Plans with relatively low MLRs have increased market share in the last few years.

There is no doubt: Obamacare will severely reduce Americans’ choice of health plans. Fortunately, states are using a number of tools to resist Obamacare, until it is repealed. To impose its anti-choice regulations, the federal law relies on state-based “exchanges” that would choose health insurance for their citizens.

Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, has signed an executive order forbidding state bureaucrats from even applying for federal grants to set up an “exchange” to limit people’s choice of health plan. As Obamacare deploys its regulatory regime, other governors are likely to follow his lead.

So Happy Birthday to the worst political stink bomb in American History.

So Where are We Now- A Year Later

This is the First Anniversary of my Blog.

Yikes what a year.

These were the first real words I wrote a year ago:

We The People, we need to take back the responsibility for our choices and to hold those politicians accountable for theirs. They serve us, it’s not the other way around.

But it does seem that in the last 20+ years that has been turned on it’s head.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country. ”

–President John F. Kennedy Jan 20th, 1961

We are long way from there now aren’t we!

These days it seems people are more interested in what government can do for them. The initiative and the drive to succeed is superseded by the want to have someone else do it for you or at the very least get someone else to pay for it (even though that in and of itself is an illusion).

The old joke of “Hi, we’re from the government and we are here to help you…” which would have sticken fear in a bygone era now seems to be what people want.

This sad state of narcissism is very troubling.

And a year later, that hasn’t changed. The Tea Party movement has gotten stronger. Congress even less popular. The Economy isn’t any better and likely is going towards a double-dip recession because the policies of Keynesian economics has failed miserably. But the Democrats fail to notice and the Media covers it up.

Government Health Care “surprises” from the now Law continue to pop up like evil gophers because the people passing the bills never read them.

Just this weekend, According to Sen. Baucus, the idea of him reading a bill allocating nearly $1 trillion of federal funds is “a waste of time:”

And he’s the one who “wrote” the Senate version!

“I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language,” Baucus said. “We hire experts.”

Aka staffers, and LOBBYISTS!

Baucus said. “Mark my words, several years from now you’re going to look back and say, ‘eh, maybe it isn’t so bad.’”(Washington Examiner)

So they pass bills that crush our freedoms, and they don’t even read them! And when you object they are condescending and tone deaf!

In the last year that has not changed.

But don’t tell that to the Media or Obama or   Congress. They are tone deaf too.

There are calls for a second stimulus again!

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again the exact same way expecting the result to be different.

The Democrats are campaigning like its 2008.

It’s all George Bush’s Fault. The Party of No. Stimulus. and more Spending.

Not much has changed.

Except the people are angrier than a year ago.

And we spent another 1.3 Trillion more than we had.

The national debt is now a couple of Trillion dollars farther down the toilet than last year.

Government has no money unless it prints more or taxes more. It must get it from thin air or from you. Period. QED.

The Democrats still want to pass the Global warming farce, called Cap & Trade, but may do it by stealth means through the EPA.

They can’t get real amnesty, so they get quasi-Amnesty by ignoring as many illegals as they can and dismissing as many cases of illegals caught as they can.

They said that Arizona is a Human Rights Abuser and should be put down, by the likes of Cuba.

Unemployment is higher and more persistent.

Higher taxes loom even larger.

Debt is even more expansive.

Uncertainty is the #1 fear. Uncertainty as to what the Democrats will do next.

I ended that blog with:

The Declaration of Dependence

We the Congress of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Dicatorship, establish Injustice, insecure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense of The Congress, promote the general Welfare of The Congress, and secure the Blessings of Total Power to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Dictatorship for the United Socialist States of North America.
Yes, admitting to bad choices is tough. Yes, it can be messy. But the adage of what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger is still true and WE THE PEOPLE need to stand up and assert our rights and not abdicate them for the simpler, less stressful,less time consuming,  less embarrassing and ultimately narcissistic way we have today.

And that is even more true now, a year later.

And November 2nd is the turning point.

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.”
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

“If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.”

Now, it’s your turn to speak. Don’t expect the Liberal Ministry of Truth Media to speak for you. They won’t.

You can see November from here. And it has to be for We The People.

Or else, WE will just fade away…..

It’s Recess Time, Children

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama bypassed the Senate Wednesday and appointed Dr. Donald Berwick, a Harvard professor and patient care specialist, to run Medicare and Medicaid.

The decision to use a so-called recess appointment to install Berwick as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services drew immediate fire from the GOP. Republicans have raised concerns about Berwick’s views on rationing of care and other matters and said it was wrong for Obama to go around the normal Senate confirmation process. That view was echoed by a key Democratic committee chairman, although the recess appointment is a tool used by presidents of both parties.

“Democrats haven’t scheduled so much as a committee hearing for Donald Berwick but the mere possibility of allowing the American people the opportunity to hear what he intends to do with their health care is evidently reason enough for this administration to sneak him through without public scrutiny,” said McConnell, R-Ky.

Could that be because Dr Berwick has been quoted as saying he “loves” the NHS (the British Health Care system) and that rationing of care is absolutely necessary and that it also a “redistribution of wealth” issue??

Gee, I wonder why no one wanted to talk about that? 🙂

Berwick, 63, is a pediatrician, Harvard University professor and leader of a health care think tank, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, that works to develop and implement concepts for improving patient care. The programs he will oversee — Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly, poor and disabled, along with the Children’s Health Insurance Program — provide care to about 100 million people, or around 1 in 3 Americans.

So he’s yet another Harvard Ivy Tower Academic Liberal.

I know I’m excited.

Dr Berwin: “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.

April 2009: Senator Max Baucus, told CNSNews in April, “There is no rationing of health care at all” in the proposed reform. (and the Baucus bill was the ‘bi-partisan’ one!)

He was the Chair of the committee that wouldn’t schedule the hearings on the Doctor’s confirmation, by the way.

And The President ran around during the debate last year that saying  “rationing” was just a scare tactic.

Hmmm…

It’s just those echoes of the health care debate that Democrats would prefer not to replay on the Senate floor.

So let’s not and say we did, and just call the whole thing off and just appoint him without any coverage at all.

Let’s just sweep it under the rug…Nothing to see here…. 🙂

Dr Berwin 2008: “Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”

Redistribution of wealth? Where have I heard that before?

Karl Marx?

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. 🙂

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.”

“But, The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.

“One of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.” —That would be Illinois State Senator Barack Obama in 2001.

In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” — and in so doing, achieve “social justice” through “redistributive change.”

Well, then. Fine .

But this is not the America I knew… (Michelle Malkin)

So the “transparent” President strikes again.

Only, what he’s transparent about isn’t what people thought he meant by that when they foolishly voted for him.

“I am romantic about the National Health Service,” he told a London audience in 2008, referring to the British single-payer system. “I love it,” Dr. Berwick added, going on to call it “such a seductress” and “a global treasure.” He routinely points to the NHS as a health-care model for the U.S. (WSJ)

According to a “topline message points” document on his nomination that we obtained, “The fact is, rationing is rampant in the system today, as insurers make arbitrary decisions about who can get the care they need. Don Berwick wants to see a system in which those decisions are transparent—and that the people who make them are held accountable.”

The people who can write such things with a straight face believe there is no difference between rationing through individual choices and price signals and rationing through politics and bureaucratic omniscience. In an influential 1996 book “New Rules,” Dr. Berwick and a co-author argued that one of “the primary functions” of health regulation is “to constrain decentralized, individual decision making” and “to weigh public welfare against the choices of private consumers.”

He then recommended “protocols, guidelines, and algorithms for care,” with the “common underlying notion that someone knows or can discover the ‘best way’ to carry out a task to reach a decision, and that improvement can come from standardizing processes and behaviors to conform to this ideal model.” And guess who will determine the “best way”?

As I said repeatedly during the Health care “debate”, the government wants to decide who lives and who dies.

Nothing more, Nothing Less.

Now doesn’t that make you feel better. 🙂

The 2005 Democrats Vs. The 2010 Democrats

You decide who wins.

The Obama White House has recently announced that they will go forward with a reconciliation process — sometimes called the “nuclear option” — to try and pass their government run healthcare plan in the Senate. This process circumvents a Republican filibuster and only requires a simple majority vote of 51 rather than 60.

What did top Democrats think of this process previously?  See below…

Barack Obama 4/25/05: “The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”


Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said ‘change the rules.’ ‘Do it the way I want it done.’ And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said ‘Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far we can’t go there.’ You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.

Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum.

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.”

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: The nuclear option if successful will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments and then legislation.

Joe Biden 5/23/2005: This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab.

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “But no we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration.”

Chris Dodd 5/18/2005: “I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have a lead co sponsor that was a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood Mr. President that there is a tyranny of the majority.

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: “If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option the senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power.”

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “You’ve got majority rule and then you have the senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate where they have something called the filibuster. You know it seems like it’s a little less than efficient — well that’s right it is. And deliberately designed to be so.”

Joe Biden 5/23/05: “I say to my friends on the Republican side you may own the field right now buy you won’t own it forever I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

Charles Schumer 5/23/2005: “They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way.”

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent to ignore the way our system has work, the delicate balance that we have obtain that has kept this constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President.”

Max Baucus 5/19/2005: “This is the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel.”

My how times have changed.

And the Hypocrisy is on the other foot.

Transparency

Mr. Obama also insisted that Democrats had been receptive to many Republican ideas on health care and had included some of them in the legislation, and he suggested that a failure to sufficiently explain the merits of the bill to the American public was a main obstacle to moving forward.

This was yesterday in the New York Times.

He’s still on the line that he didn’t explain it well enouugh. That we are just too stupid to understand what he and his Socialist buddies want.

And that they accommodated the Republicans and it’s their fault it’s dragged on this long.

And that completely shutting out the Republicans totally is including their ideas.

Ah, the ways of the Ideologue.

Completely uninterested in reality, only interested in their own arrogant ideology.

They are right and we are wrong.

That’s it.

And if they hammer enough, long enough, we’ll give in.

“I’m reminded that when it came to the health insurance reform in particular, I sought out and supported Republican ideas from the start. So did you,” Mr. Obama said, singling out the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who spent months working with a small bipartisan group struggling to draft a compromise health measure.

“Max Baucus — where’s Max? I think he can testify to spending a little time listening to Republican ideas,” Mr. Obama said. “You considered hundreds of Republican amendments and incorporated many of their ideas into the legislation that passed the Senate. So when I start hearing that we should accept Republican ideas, let’s be clear: we have. What hasn’t happened is the other side accepting our ideas.”

So where’s the Portability?

Where’s the Tort Reform?

These were “Republican ideas”.

Oh, right, the Democrats voted every single thing the Republicans offered, especially these two, down  REPEATEDLY and with extreme partisan prejudice.

But don’t worry, it’s the Republicans fault for the Health Care bill having a near fatal heart attack.

“I would just suggest to this caucus, if anybody’s searching for a lesson from Massachusetts, I promise you the answer is not to do nothing,” he said. “The American people are out of patience with business-as-usual. They’re fed up with a Washington that has become so absorbed with who’s up and who’s down that we’ve lost sight of how they’re doing. They want us to start worrying less about keeping our jobs and more about helping them keep their jobs. And they want to see their business done in an open and transparent way.”

And the last months of the last Health care debate were anything but that. It was the most partisan, least “transparent” debate in living memory.

But that’s still not their fault.

Rasmussen 1/22/10: Sixty-one percent (61%) of U.S. voters say Congress should drop health care reform and focus on more immediate ways to improve the economy and create jobs.

Last week, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote: “Who is Barack Obama? Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don’t get it soon — or if they don’t like the answer — the president’s current political problems will look like a walk in the park. … Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.” (Tony Blankley)

President Obama again in NY Times: “If the Republicans say that they can insure every American for free, which is what was claimed the other day, at no cost, I’d want to know…”

There’s that extremist condescension again.

No one has suggested it could be done for free, but let’s be snotty  and childish about it, like most Liberals.

This one sentence shows he’s not really serious about anything he’s said about “transparency” or “republican ideas”.

Which is ultimately true.

The Agenda is the Agenda.

And they want to infect the whole economy with it, heedless and regardless.

That’s very Transparent, Mr. President.

“You know, maybe I’m naive — I’m still counting, Evan (Byah-D IN), on the notion that good policy over the long term is good politics,” the president said. “If — if you do the right thing, and you explain it clearly and you do it openly, I’m confident that the American people — you can have an adult conversation and say, ‘This is not going to be easy, this is not going to be painless, we’re going to be struggling for a while. But our future is bright.’”

The American People have spoken. You just didn’t like what we said, so you treat us like children and say if we badger and hammer them enough and pull enough parliamentary tricks along the way eventually they’ll have to love us.

Or Else. 😦

Ity’s kind of like your mother badgering you to eat your vegetables.

Mama Government wants you to swallow their Health Care.

It’s for your own good. 😦

We’ll just wear you down, like the relentless erosion of a cliff by a stream. Eventually we will get you to bend to our will.

That’s very Transparent, Mr. President.

And if they don’t, oh well, we will win somehow, anyhow, in the long run.

Anyone feel like celebrating?

How to Be Evil Rich in a Recession

Become a Federal bureaucratic cog.

And with 111 new agencies for Health Care alone there will be plenty of opportunities to join the machine.

No wonder the money druggie Congress can’t stop spending.

It’s a pandemic virus out of control. Only the doctors are the patients.

The New Swine Flu. Only, the politicians are the  pork-fed Swine.

USAToday:  The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.

Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

The private sector= Evil rich corporations raping America. Fat-cat CEO’s who get massive bonuses. 🙂

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.

“There’s no way to justify this to the American people. It’s ridiculous,” says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House’s federal workforce subcommittee.

Oh, but they’ll try.

And the have FEHBP, the diamond platinum best-in-the history-of-mankind Health Care plan that they don’t want to share with you. No, you get ObamaCare filled with massive taxes, rationing, and cuts to seniors care.

Isn’t that special!

USA TODAY analyzed the Office of Personnel Management’s database that tracks salaries of more than 2 million federal workers. Excluded from OPM’s data: the White House, Congress, the Postal Service, intelligence agencies and uniformed military personnel.

The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker’s pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.

•Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.

New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

•Pay caps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency’s leader. But if Congress lifts the boss’ salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief’s salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees’ had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.

But they want a “pay Czar” to reign in runaway CEO’s. But runaway federal agency members and administrators?

The Sky’s the limit.

NRO: Most remarkably, there are fully 383,000 federal workers earning six-figure salaries and 22,000 earning salaries of over $170,000. And these numbers don’t even include the $41,000 in non-salary benefits the average federal employee receives each year.

The number of civil servants making $100,000 or more has jumped over 46 percent since the start of the recession.

Under Bush & Obama I might add, before the liberals get all Bush Deranged.

The Washington metropolitan area received nearly 10 times as much stimulus money per capita as the national average, keeping the unemployment rate in the area at 6.2 percent, far below rates of other large cities—9.3 percent in New York; over 10 percent in Chicago, Atlanta and Los Angeles—and the national average of 10.2 percent. 14.3 in Michigan.

Did you know that more than 50% of the richest counties in America surround Washington D.C?? and only 4 out the top 15 are in the evil capital Wall-street area of New York City??

And the 4 out of the 5 top richest Congressman are Democrats.

Recovery Act funding alone has fed the creation of 407,000 government contract jobs—or two thirds of all jobs “created” under the Act—according to one independent analysis. And during a time when most businesses are downsizing, the federal government itself actually grew by 13,000 employees in the last year—the first increase since the 1970s.

So do you think Obama’s “Jobs” summit and  “jobs” campaign tour is about getting more Federal jobs?

After all, the private sector is full of evil capitalists. 🙂

IDB: Among the countless absurdities built into the federal salary system is the mandate that when the head of an agency gets a raise, lots of his underlings automatically do too. That’s what happens when it’s play money you’re handling, which is what Washington thinks the revenues provided by the people who give politicians their jobs is.

No wonder Liberal love government so much, they can pork themselves and they can pretend to care about their “dependents” (you and me) while screwing the “dependents” for their own benefit.

It’s all free. No consequences. And Endless.

Utopia Awaits!

What a deal.

Courtesy of National Review Online

Democratic Underground (one the most far left sites out there) poster:  I don’t find the comparison with what a non-corrupt people’s government would produce and what corrupt corporations produce to be meaningful.
A people’s government should produce health for the nation — unfortunately, right now it’s producing disease.
Oh, corporations are part of the sickness of America — and a large part of producing the harm causing our sickness.

I think this person, and Congress, have forgotten what a representative Constitutional Republic is.

Alternet (another liberal site):  When we speak of the ungodly amounts of money that Wall Street scions make, it’s generally accepted that most don’t need to be making nearly as much as they are for two main reasons. One, it’s plainly wasteful; and two, the financial collapse is a pretty good indication of how inversely proportional those enormous bankers’ salaries are to the societal benefit they create.

The first part of that argument can and ought be extended to the public sector, where salaries are paid for by the same financially burdened taxpayers who have made clear they don’t want bailed-out banks to give executives big raises and bonuses. The federal government could use a pay czar, too.

Perhaps the money saved by instituting more recession-sensitive salary levels for federal employees could be redistributed to the states, where many public employees are being laid off, key social programs and offices whittled away, and offerings cut by public school systems in order to make ends meet.

Bonuses and raises are fine incentives for excellent work, but these days, simply having work — especially the kind of good, stable, living wage-level work that federal employment guarantees — ought be incentive enough.

But since government produces nothing and is not accountable to profit and loss why should they care. 🙂

Since June, (so no Bush Derangement here) the federal government has increased employment by almost 10 percent, while the private sector has cut employment by over 6 percent. And which sector do you figure was more padded to begin with?

Sen. Max Baucus’ office defends his girlfriend’s big pay raise (the job he got her at the Justice Dept-a pay raise of close to $14,000 to staffer Melodee Hanes last year, as he was becoming sexually involved with her. Baucus was separated from his now ex-wife at the time) by pointing to the raises others living off the taxpayer spigot got. What sympathy for the 10% of Americans suffering unemployment.

As the Politico reports, a few months later Baucus took Hanes “on a taxpayer-funded trip to Vietnam and the Middle East, though foreign policy was not her specialty.” In Washington, they call that on-the-job training — except that Baucus then nominated her for U.S. attorney in Montana (where he’s the Senator from), where Asian and Arab expertise is rarely useful in court.

Don’t they call that a Pimp and his ho?

Not in D.C.

A Baucus spokesman’s excuse: “Ms. Hanes’ salary increased by the exact same amount as our legislative director and less than our chief of staff.” Does the senator really think that makes the 7 million ordinary Joes without work feel better?

IBD: If you didn’t think the Democrats in power in Washington are doing enough to spark a people’s rebellion, just look at their latest shenanigans.

Congress is raising the federal debt ceiling by as much as $1.8 trillion in hopes that next October, when Republicans will be pounding them on this, voters won’t remember what they were up to way back in December of 2009.

But that astronomical amount is twice what was baked into their budget resolution earlier this year. When asked about so much red ink, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., just shrugged and told the Politico: “The credit card has already been used. When you get the bill in the mail you need to pay it.”

For most normal people that’s when you STOP USING IT!!!

You get counseling.

Do something other than ignore it.

But the federal credit card is has no limit.

And we have porkaholics with their hands on it.

But just remember, they care about the little people in the private sector.

You’re the source of their drug.

The current debt ceiling of $12.1 trillion is now not enough for Congress to live under — though only a fraction of the $787 billion stimulus passed earlier this year has been spent. And a $447 billion bill for Cabinet and other agencies is set for enactment, increasing spending by as much as 10%.

But, remember, these are the people who screamed and yelled and ranted until they turned blue in the face about how immoral and unethical it was for the Republican to be running up so much debt and that Bush was evil 🙂

Well, now that they have they’ve bathed in that pie I guess it’s not so bad after all. 🙂

They kind of like it here.

Mayo Clinic Defintion of Drug Addiction: When you’re addicted, you may not be able to control your drug use and you may continue using the drug despite the harm it causes. Drug addiction can cause an intense craving for the drug. You may want to quit, but most people find they can’t do it on their own.

As time passes, you may need larger doses of the drug to get high. Soon you may need the drug just to feel good. As your drug use increases, you may find that it becomes increasingly difficult to go without the drug. Stopping may cause intense cravings and make you feel physically ill (withdrawal symptoms).

Drug addiction symptoms or behaviors include:

  • Feeling that you have to use the drug regularly — this can be daily or even several times a day
  • Failing in your attempts to stop using the drug
  • Making certain that you maintain a supply of the drug
  • Spending money on the drug even though you can’t afford it
  • Doing things to obtain the drug that you normally wouldn’t do, such as stealing
  • Feeling that you need the drug to deal with your problems
  • Focusing more and more time and energy on getting and using the drug

And Washington’s drug is the Money that begets power.

Power is the ultimate goal, but you need the money to get there.

And you, the taxpayer are the source.

They are the junkie.

And they thousands of minions in the cog of the bureaucracy that they have so satisfy also.

After, it’s a no-limit credit card.

$12,100,000,000,000 is just a number.

adding 1.8-1.9 trillion to it : $14,000,000,000,000

It doesn’t mean anything.

It’s all monopoly money to them.

And it sure doesn’t mean putting the Federal gravy train on a diet!