Healthcare Reform? They lie so much, they're unable to recognize TRUTH!

[Boatwrench]

My error...I was thinking of The New Deal; FDR's vision. Astute guys such as yourselves should have been able to have figured that from my Greatest Generation and 50-60's comments.

 

[joe_peters]

My error...I was thinking of The New Deal; FDR's vision. Astute guys such as yourselves should have been able to have figured that from my Greatest Generation and 50-60's comments.

New Deal = BS.

Part of FDR's "New Deal", the NRA (nothing to do with guns) was to take away half a job from one man and put another man to work half time. This happened to my paternal grandfather, a millwright for a Ceresota Flour mill.

Sorry, FDR's "New Deal" stagnated this country's economy and dragged out the Great Depression until about 1939. Don't thank a Progressive Socialist like FDR for ending the Great Depression in the U.S., it was another Progressive Socialist--Hitler--that brought it to an end with what became WWII. :lecture:

 

[XJEEPER]

One would need to experince the conduitions of the working poor prior to the enactment of he bills termed The Great Society. The Great Society allowed this country to become the super power of the world.

I've heard similar statements from devout Communists and Socialists........and the Lite version - American Progressives.

Unions created at that time have systematically undermined our superpower status. UAW worker earns $69.00/hr ($30/hr + $39/hr in benefits) to stand in line and assemble your assigned piece of a car......really?

As Detroit how this has worked out for them..............

It works like this.....tell people that they are "entitled" to stuff that they should actually earn and eventually you convince them. Elect officials that promote this agenda and with the support of the brainwashed "entitlement" crowd, pass legislation that re-distributes wealth and enslaves the ignorant.

The American people have continually been led to believe, contrary to the Constitution, that the US Government is better at supporting their healthcare and retirement than they are........look how well that's worked out. Obama and the supporting members of Congress only want to perpetuate this lie and further enslave the American people with their wealth-redistribution and social justice agenda.

The Will of the People is not being represented here folks, the will of the Unions and their Socilalist agendas are.

 

[Darky]

I've heard similar statements from devout Communists and Socialists........and the Lite version - American Progressives.

Unions created at that time have systematically undermined our superpower status. UAW worker earns $69.00/hr ($30/hr + $39/hr in benefits) to stand in line and assemble your assigned piece of a car......really?

As Detroit how this has worked out for them..............

It works like this.....tell people that they are "entitled" to stuff that they should actually earn and eventually you convince them. Elect officials that promote this agenda and with the support of the brainwashed "entitlement" crowd, pass legislation that re-distributes wealth and enslaves the ignorant.

The American people have continually been led to believe, contrary to the Constitution, that the US Government is better at supporting their healthcare and retirement than they are........look how well that's worked out. Obama and the supporting members of Congress only want to perpetuate this lie and further enslave the American people with their wealth-redistribution and social justice agenda.

The Will of the People is not being represented here folks, the will of the Unions and their Socilalist agendas are.

I think that the unions weren't a bad thing to start with, but they quickly realized they had a lot of power and took advantage of it. Conditions were pretty rough and something needed to be done. Unions got it done. Unfortunately they got greedy and went to far and now we have the aforementioned $69/hr auto worker.

 

[XJEEPER]

President Obama keeps rolling out the tax hikes. In his budget released earlier this month, excluding the tax hikes he assumed to pay for health care, he called for $1.3 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade. Now in his recently released health reform plan, he calls for even more tax increases. Today, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) released their analysis of the tax increases in the President’s plan. According to the JCT, the plan will raise taxes by another $414 billion between 2010 and 2019. The taxes the President Obama proposed hiking are as follows (the year the tax kicks in and the amount the tax will raise between 2010 and 2019 are in parentheses):

• <LI class=first nodeIndex="1">Require information reporting on payments to corporations (2011 – $17.1 billion) <LI class=alt nodeIndex="2">Exclusion of unprocessed fuels from the cellulosic biofuel produce credit (immediately upon passage – $23.9 billion) <LI nodeIndex="3">Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties for underpayments (immediately upon passage – $4.9 billion) <LI class=alt nodeIndex="4">Increase Hospital Insurance portion of the payroll tax and apply it to investment income for families earning more than $250,000 a year ($200,000 for single filers) (2012 – $183.6) <LI nodeIndex="5"> Excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans valued at more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families (2018 – $32.7 billion)* <LI class=alt nodeIndex="6">Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs (2011 – $33.4 billion)* <LI nodeIndex="7">Impose excise tax on manufacturers and importers of medical devices (2012 – $20 billion)* <LI class=alt nodeIndex="8">Impose annual fee on health insurance companies (2014 – $59.5 billion)* <LI nodeIndex="9">Excise tax on indoor tanning services (2010 – $2.7 billion)* <LI class=alt nodeIndex="10">Limit Health Savings Accounts (HSA) (2011 – $5.0 billion)* <LI nodeIndex="11">Increase taxes on unqualified distributions from HSAs (2011 – $1.4 billion)* <LI class=alt nodeIndex="12">Limit Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA) (2014 – $11.4 billion)* <LI nodeIndex="13">Eliminate deduction of expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy (2012 – $2.6 billion)* <LI class=alt nodeIndex="14">Limit deductions for medical expenses (2013 – $15.2 billion)* <LI nodeIndex="15">Higher taxes on compensation above $500,000 paid to officers, employees, directors and service providers of covered health insurance providers (2013 – $0.6 billion)
• Higher taxes on certain health organizations (2010 – $0.4 billion)*

The taxes with the (*) will directly apply, or will be passed on to, families earning less than $250,000 a year. This is a contradiction of President Obama’s campaign pledge not to raise taxes on these families.
Almost all of these taxes came out of the separate bills passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. The only new tax the President proposed is applying the Hospital Insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax to investment income for the first time. This would be a dangerous break with past precedent and would slow economic growth at the worst time.

The President’s plan assumes raising $24 billion by excluding paper companies from taking the celluslosic biofuel producer credit. This credit was only supposed to apply to producers of biofuels, but a technicality in the law allowed paper companies to qualify. The Senate already laid claim to this exclusion in their recently passed “jobs” bill.

If that becomes law, policy and germaneness aside, the President will have to conjure up some more new taxes or spending cuts to pay for his new plan.

The hefty tax increases are a heavy blow to a struggling economy, but they do not come close to covering the full cost of the President’s plan which will cost more than $1 trillion over ten years. The President has repeatedly insisted that his plan will not increase the deficit. If that is so, he needs to explain how he will fill the $600 billion shortfall. The gap could mean even more tax increases are on the way. Unfortunately, such calls are now commonplace for the President.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/25/the-taxes-just-keep-on-coming/

 

[XJEEPER]

I think that the unions weren't a bad thing to start with, but they quickly realized they had a lot of power and took advantage of it. Conditions were pretty rough and something needed to be done. Unions got it done. Unfortunately they got greedy and went to far and now we have the aforementioned $69/hr auto worker.

UAW is a small piece of the Socialism Pie and here's more proof that Obama's Healthcare plan is nothing about health or care and all about:

• social justice
• redistribution of wealth
• reparations
• power
• control

CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
SEIU Healthcare Michigan
(June 2009)


• We must organize unorganized Healthcare workers, extending to them the gains of unionism while securing control over the Healthcare industry.

• We must build political power to ensure that workers’ voices are heard at every level of government to create economic opportunity and foster social justice.

• We must provide meaningful paths for member involvement and participation in a strong and democratic union.

• We must develop highly trained and motivated leaders at every level of SEIU Healthcare Michigan who reflect the membership in all its diversity.

• We must bargain collective bargaining agreements that improve wages and working conditions, expand the role of workers in workplace decision-making, and build a stronger union.

• We must build coalitions and act in solidarity with other organizations that share our concern for social and economic justice.

• We must engage in direct action that demonstrates our power and our determination to win.

To accomplish these goals, we must be unified – inspired by a set of beliefs and principles that transcends our diversity and guides our work. We believe we can accomplish little as separate individuals, but that, together, we have the power to create a just society. We believe unions are the means by which working people build power – by which ordinary people accomplish extraordinary things.

 

[XJEEPER]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a7c_1255405742

Obama states that SEIU got him elected as Senator and with their help, he will change the county. The guy isn't dumb, he's calculating and delivering on his promise. Social Justice-Wealth Redistribution......not my words-Obama and SEIU's words.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/31/for-obama-some-unions-are-more-equal-than-others/

http://www.atr.org/investigation-request-filed-against-unregistered-lobbyist-a4270#

 

[RichP]

To me social security was an abomination when it was started, they saw it as a way to get more tax money without it being a tax by promising 'you will get it back' [If you live long enough, fat chance]. Collection was 15 years past the average age that people lived and if they did they only collected for a few years. Now if they had fixed this and taken all that money and used it, invested it, instead of squandered it we would not be in this position now. Same with medicare, all of them were managed about as piss poor as you can get. If these people had been civilian commercial investors they would be in jail now.

 

[XJEEPER]

If these people had been civilian commercial investors they would be in jail now.

By our governments own definition......Social Security and Medicare have evolved into Ponzi schemes.

What is a Ponzi scheme?

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity.

http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm
[/FONT]

 

[kujito]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors ...[/FONT]

There's their out. As far as I recall, I've never been "solicited" or given any option about "investing" or not.

It's simply stolen, er, withheld from my paycheck.

 

[JNickel101]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-health-care-biggest-faith-based-vote-house/

:doh:

FoxNews has a pretty funny headline about this: "Democratic leaders ask their party members to trust them, approve health care and then go back and amend law"

Right, because THAT'S going to happen....

 

[kastein]

OK... I'll bite...















... as soon as Obama follows through on the rest of his campaign promises.

 

[XJEEPER]

That she-weasel Pelosi just doesn't know when to quit. Perhaps she can just do away with voting altogether and Obama will sign it into law.......it's worked for Castro and Chavez, as well as Mao and Hitler.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742_pf.html

 

[Boatwrench]

"Persuading liberals such as Kucinich to support the Senate bill is critical to the Democratic strategy...." :dunno:

Pretty much covers everybody...
"House leaders have worked for days to round up support for the legislation, but the Senate measure has drawn fierce opposition from a broad spectrum of members. Antiabortion Democrats say it would permit federal funding for abortion, liberals oppose its tax on high-cost insurance plans, and Republicans say the measure overreaches and is too expensive."



"Republicans quickly condemned the strategy, framing it as an effort to avoid responsibility for passing the legislation, and some suggested that Pelosi's plan would be unconstitutional." If it is ruled unconstitutional would everything that has been passed using this tactic also be deemed unconstitutional? I didn't read the 1998 ruling but it makes sense to me.

"Kucinich is coming under intense pressure from Ohioans who want Congress to act, and from his colleagues in Washington." Ohioans, but are they in his congressional district? If they are he'll fold.

"Democratic leaders learned over the weekend that they may not be able to include a number of favored items, including some Republican proposals to stem fraud in federal health-care programs and a plan to weaken a new board that would be empowered to cut Medicare payments."

So the Democrats are willing to compromise but the following pretty much sums it all up...

"All of us -- the governor, the congressional delegation, the president -- are making clear to Dennis that we won't have another chance for a decade if this doesn't happen," Brown said. "

 

[XJEEPER]

If you have any doubt that the Democratic leadership of the House views passing the current health care reform bill as the beginning, not the end, of the process of creating a national government health care system, just note what Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a group of bloggers on Monday.

"My biggest fight has been between those who wanted to do something incremental and those who wanted to do something comprehensive," Pelosi said, according to an account by Washington Post reform advocate Ezra Klein. "We won that fight, and once we kick through this door, there'll be more legislation to follow."

But since the current bill is unpopular, and Pelosi at the moment does not have enough Democratic, much less Republican, votes to pass it, the door she will be kicking through is the back door.

Pelosi told the bloggers she favors using the "self-executing rule" strategy in which the House would pass the Senate health care bill without going on the record as specifically voting for it. "I like it," Pelosi said of the scheme, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill." The strategy of passing the Senate bill while avoiding a direct vote, writes Klein, "is all about plausible deniability for House members who don't want to vote for the Senate bill."

In a particularly Alice-in-Wonderland moment, Pelosi argued that the debate over health care reform can begin after the bill is passed. "Pelosi said passing the bill would allow Dems to undertake a 'debate' with Republicans over 'what is the balanced role that government should have,'" writes another pro-reform blogger at the Post, Greg Sargent.

According to Sargent, Pelosi explained, "We have to take it to the American people, to say, this is the choice that you have. This is the vision that they have for your health and well being, and this is the vision that we have." Again, in Pelosi's scenario, that debate would occur after the bill is passed.

Finally, Pelosi downplayed statements from her own team that she does not yet have the votes to pass the national health care measure. On "Meet the Press" Sunday, Democratic Whip Rep. James Clyburn said, "No, we don't have them as of this morning." Meeting with the bloggers, Pelosi said, "The reason [Clyburn] said that is we don’t have a bill yet." In the end, the Speaker declared, "I have no intention of not passing this bill."


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Pelosi-Once-we-kick-through-this-door-more-reform-will-follow-87741467.html#ixzz0iM4CaLHv

 

[RichP]

Interesting analogy last night in referencing the government to the people, 'The jockey has gotten bigger than the horse'.
I thought it was a good one.

 

[XJEEPER]

The BS continues...........

FACT CHECK: Premiums would rise under Obama plan

Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that federal employees have.

"You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Obama said. "And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket."
And that's not all.

Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.
"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

It could be a long wait.

"There's no question premiums are still going to keep going up," said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. "There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today."

The statistics Obama based his claims on come from two sources. In both cases, the caveats got left out.

A report for the Business Roundtable, an association of big company CEOs, was the source for the claim that employers could save $3,000 per worker on health care costs, the White House said.

Issued in November, the report looked generally at proposals that Democrats were considering to curb health care costs, concluding they had the potential to significantly reduce future increases.
But the analysis didn't consider specific legislation, much less the final language being tweaked this week. It's unclear to what degree the bill that the House is expected to vote on within days would reduce costs for employers.

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest.
It found that large employers would see premium savings of at most 3 percent compared with what their costs would have been without the legislation. That would be more like a few hundred dollars instead of several thousand.

The claim that people buying coverage individually would save 14 percent to 20 percent comes from the same budget office report, prepared in November for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.

But the presidential sound bite fails to convey the full picture.

The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation.

 

[XJEEPER]

Government Run Healthcare shines again!!



PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The Department of Veterans Affairs was fined $227,500 after incorrect radiation doses were given to 97 veterans with prostate cancer at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, a federal agency announced Wednesday.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the fine is the second largest it has ever levied for medical errors. The VA was cited for lacking procedures to ensure and verify the treatments were done correctly, failing to properly train staff and neglecting to immediately report mistakes.


"This substantial fine emphasizes the high significance of violations at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center that resulted in close to 100 of our nation's veterans receiving substandard treatments," NRC regional administrator Mark Satorius said.

The men underwent brachytherapy, a common surgical treatment that involves implanting tiny radioactive iodine pellets, often called "seeds," in the prostate to kill cancer cells. Men who undergo only that type of treatment typically have low-risk prostate cancer.
VA officials reviewed medical records and conducted tests on 116 veterans implanted with the seeds from 2002 to 2008 and found that 97 received the wrong doses. Most of the men got far less than the prescribed dose, while others received too much radiation to nearby tissue and organs.

"The lack of management oversight, the lack of safety culture to ensure patients are treated safely, the potential consequences to the veterans who came to this facility and the sheer number of medical events show the gravity of these violations," Satorius said in a statement.
The Philadelphia VA Medical Center, established in 1952, shut down its prostate cancer program as a result of the botched treatments.

 

[XJEEPER]

They don't care what We the People want. They are willing to fall on their swords to take control of our lives and remove our Freedoms. I'm convinced that it's all part of their plan.

Who are they? Progressive Socialist. Got Social Justice?

 

[XJEEPER]

Subcommittee on Oversight ranking member Charles Boustany (R-La.) said the IRS provision in the bill "dangerously expands, in an ominous way the tentacles of the IRS and it's reach into every American family," he said today during a press conference.


"This is a vast expanse of power," he said.
Boustany said the bill would allow the IRS to confiscate refunds if there are penalties for not buying health care.
Lawmakers have questioned whether the IRS can handle the increased workload to oversee, administer and collect penalties for people who don't buy health insurance.
"This is increasing tax liability and tax scrutiny," said Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.).
Ranking member Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said many Americans have already rejected the call for health care reform for other reasons and an expansion of the IRS should only add to call to "kill the bill."

Taxpayers could be required to buy insurance under President Barack Obama’s reform proposal by 2014 or face penalties of roughly $325 per individual that the IRS would collect.

Assuming it becomes law, the Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS will need roughly $10 billion over the next 10 years and nearly 17,000 new employees to meet its new responsibilities under health reform.

"We're going to fight to the end to see that this does not pass," Boustany said



“This legislation will drive up health-care costs by adding billions in new health-care taxes and encouraging people to wait until they are sick before getting insurance,” said Karen Ignagni, the president and chief executive officer of the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, in a statement.