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

[XJEEPER]

There is no other way to call this. The President of the United States is a LIAR.

Barack Obama

“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.”

“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.”

Health Care Costs Will Decrease Overall
Obama said health care costs will come down for families, with some families seeing their rates drop by up to 20%. Obama says this will be achieved by more prudent and efficient ways to deliver health care services. Obama claims that the deficit will be reduced by $1 trillion over the next 20 years.

*********************************************************************

Obamacare Increases Unemployment, Insurance Premiums, Deficit, and Debt
Posted March 17th, 2010 at 10:27am in Health Care with 8 comments Print This Post


President Barack Obama and congressional leaders claim that the Senate health bill, which will likely face a vote in the House by the end of the week, will decrease the deficit and bend the cost curve related to health care spending. However, recent analysis by The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA) shows that this is far from true. Instead, the bill’s mandates and numerous new taxes will have tumultuous effects. Passing Obamacare will come at the expense of the American people as it would grow the federal debt, increase premiums, and stifle economic growth.

The Senate bill would have disastrous effects on the economy and federal spending. CDA shows that the bill:

• Increases the federal deficit and national debt. The Congressional Budget Office shows deficit neutrality for the Senate bill—however, this is based on static analysis which ignores the effects new taxes and an individual and employer mandate would have on economic growth. These provisions would decrease investment in the economy, resulting in lower wages and salaries. This means less taxable income, lowering federal revenues and growing the debt. Increased borrowing puts upward pressure on interest rates causing some private sector productive investment opportunities to be foregone. This also increases the interest owed on the national debt, such that the government would pay, on average, $20 billion more in interest between 2010 and 2020. By the end of the decade, CDA estimates the publicly held debt would be $755 billion dollars more than under current law.

• Increases insurance premiums. Mandates in the Senate bill would require health plans to offer more generous coverage, increasing the cost of insurance. Increased spending on premiums, accompanied by increased medical spending, would create upward pressure on prices. This would further increase government spending, since offering the current levels of care covered by Medicaid and the proposed subsidies would cost significantly more. Another choice would be to ration provider payments even more severely.

• Increases unemployment. The bill also places new taxes on “the rich”—or, in more realistic terms, small businesses and those who create jobs. CDA’s dynamic analysis of the bill shows that an average 690,000 jobs per year would be lost due to the effects described above.

Americans have recently voiced that Congress’ top legislative priority should be restoring jobs and the economy. Instead, congressional leaders have focused their agenda on passing the Senate health care bill, which would have the opposite effect of killing jobs growth, suppressing economic growth, and adding to the nation’s already unsustainable levels of federal spending.





Dow Jones Newswires | Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees."
Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.

The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.

"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year."

Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured Americans would result in higher insurance costs for those employers that already provide coverage. Opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation.

A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.

Caterpillar noted that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and the value of health care for patients as well as lower costs for employer-sponsored insurance coverage.

"Unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House and Senate, nor the president's proposal, meets these goals," the letter said.




Ever wonder what Tyranny looks like? OPEN YOUR EYES!!

 

[RichP]

I can see it now at the board meeting for wellpoint, 'well we have 24 million new subscribers and 500million more in gross revenue, lets drop our rates to everyone' Oh yea, I can see that happening with no problem...right ?

 

[XJEEPER]

http://biggovernment.com/capitolcon...office-says-constituent-calls-are-harassment/

Yesterday, I decided to call Rep. John Garamendi’s (CA-10) office in Washington, D.C. He’s my representative and I wanted to voice my opposition to the Senate Health Care Bill. I spoke with a female staffer and politely told her that, while I support health care reform, I oppose the Senate Bill because it wasn’t true “reform.” She said the Congressman thinks it’s a good bill and that he campaigned on health care reform. I told her I knew that. I also mentioned that I voted for him. When I tried to give her specific reasons why the Senate Bill would harm our system rather than reform it, she refused to listen. She said she was very busy and hung up on me. Being the persistent person that I am, I kept calling back. Each time I tried to finish my point, she hung up.

I called one more time. This time she said, “If you call one more time, we will notify Capital Police.” I asked why my conduct warranted involving federal law enforcement agents. She said I was “harassing” her. I tried to explain that trying to convince a representative to change his or her vote didn’t constitute “harassment.” Before I could fully explain, she hung up again.
I called back. This time, I asked to speak to her supervisor in order to report her repeated hanging up as well as the threat she made. I was placed on hold. Thinking I was holding for her supervisor, I was shocked when a Federal Agent with the Capital Police picked-up the telephone.
At first, the Agent was curt with me. He claimed I was harassing Mr. Garamendi’s staff by continually calling after being told to stop calling. I asked him when it became a federal crime to lobby a congressman. He said that it wasn’t but it was a crime to “harass” congressional members and staff pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 223. I told him I was an attorney (which I am) and that I would research the statute he had cited.

After researching 47 U.S.C. 223, I called Mr. Garamendi’s office again and asked to be transferred back to the Capital Police Agent. The Agent picked up the phone and I explained to him that the statute he cited was not controlling since it only prohibits people from calling with the specific intent to harass. I further explained that I was simply trying to voice my concerns with the intent of getting Mr. Garamendi to change his mind, not to harass his staff. The Agent eventually agreed with my position and said he would call Mr. Garamendi’s office and instruct his staff that I was within my rights to call my congressman and voice my concerns.
After I hung up, I realized that this story should be told. Besides being an attorney, I’ve also had the privilege of serving this great country in the United States Marine Corps. Having seen the ugly legislative process the Senate Bill had been through, I saw this as not just another tactic to pass the Senate Bill at all costs, but also as an affront to our liberties.
While I’m fortunate enough to be able to legally challenge what happened today, others aren’t. The sad part is the democrats know this. They know that Americans unfamiliar with federal jurisprudence can easily be silenced when threats to involve federal agents are made. They know that most Americans don’t want trouble and they’ll go away rather than face the possibility of having to explain themselves to federal agents. That’s why I found this tactic appalling, as a Marine, as an attorney and as a proud American.
During my final contact with Mr. Garamendi’s staff, it was confirmed to me that he would vote for the Senate Bill no matter what. I was told that I was wasting my time by calling. Mr. Garamendi is a junior member of the House of Representatives. He was just elected via a special election last November. He has made it clear that he is willing to forsake his constituents in order to please the Speaker of the House.
Speaker Pelosi has said that she will stop at nothing to get the Senate Bill passed. She publicly stated that she would “pole vault over a wall” if barriers stood in her way. While that may be an amusing spectacle, it is indicative of what happened to me today. Apparently, threatening Americans with federal crimes to silence them is the latest tool in Speaker Pelosi’s dirty bag of tricks.
In the coming days, I’m sure more stories will develop illustrating the “win at all costs” tactics being employed by democrats. It’s these tactics that have appalled a majority of Americans to the point that the Senate Bill has overwhelmingly been rejected by the American people. When we try to explain that to Speaker Pelosi’s Caucus, we are threatened with criminal sanctions. We are told to shut up or face federal agents. Such treatment may be acceptable in the former Soviet Union, but it’s repulsive in the country I love and served. Is this hope and change?

 

[XJEEPER]

Blatent disregard of the Constitution

Yesterday, former U.S. Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and William P. Barr released the following statement:

The convoluted and questionable method under discussion by both Houses of Congress for final passage of the long-debated health care legislation raises serious constitutional concerns, which, at best, will lead to protracted and wholly avoidable litigation and continued doubt about the bill’s validity.

Members of Congress from both parties have criticized the use of such sleights of hand, and The Washington Post has rightly editorialized against such “unseemly” and “dodgy” maneuvers for the health care bill. Beyond the obvious practical concerns shared by all citizens, the use of such obscure “rules” for final passage is even harder to justify in light of the real constitutional doubt and the erosion of public confidence in government that it will cause.

Contrary to what President Obama and some congressional leaders have been repeating of late, the American people do care passionately that the process for consideration of health care reform be both constitutional and fair. At a bare minimum, article I, sec. 7, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that before it becomes law “(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President.” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448 (1998).

The “deem and pass” and similar options under consideration in the House of Representatives plainly violate at least the spirit of the Constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements. Those constitutional requirements were intended to ensure democratic transparency with a straightforward up-or-down vote in each House on all bills that become law.

More importantly, these requirements were designed to ensure that the new national government actually followed “the consent of the governed,” which the Declaration of Independence had declared to the world was the only basis of legitimate government.

The “deem and pass” options under consideration in the House and the subsequent use of a “reconciliation” process that is reserved for budget issues in acts already signed into law further erode confidence in the rule of law. Some past uses of the “deem and pass” or “self-executing” rules raise similar concerns, but none was as convoluted as the proposed use, and significantly, there may have been no one with legal standing to challenge prior uses in court. Many individuals will have standing to challenge any health reform legislation that restructures one-sixth of the American economy, and the contemplated use of the “deem and pass” maneuver in this instance may be combined with questionable procedural steps in the Senate that render it much more subject to challenge.

There is no need to engage in such procedural machinations, and no asserted reason for doing so exists other than to avoid the traditional legislative safeguards in the Senate and to obscure the appearance that Members of the House actually voted for the Senate bill, which is a prerequisite for genuine reconciliation. The constitutional requirement of bicameralism should not be jettisoned under any circumstances—and certainly not for such trivial and partisan reasons.

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Members should violate neither the letter nor spirit of the Constitution, especially when there is so much at stake, not only as a policy matter, but when the very legitimacy of the legislative process is in question.

Given that many parts of the underlying legislation itself raise substantial constitutional concerns, these “unseemly” and “dodgy” procedures underscore the justified concern the American people have that their elected representatives are blatantly disregarding the Constitution, and as a result, undermining the rule of law.
​

 

[Boatwrench]

What the health care bill means to you. :rtm:






It really boils down to what biased media source you listen to.


Will the attorney vote for Congressman Garamendi in the future?

This statment alone makes me want to support health care even more.

Real Compassion display by Rush Limbaugh

 

[joe_peters]

Well, heck, if that's all its going to cost Caterpillar what is all the fuss about?

We are on the razor's edge of massive civil disobedience and armed resistance, and I am so glad that there are about 100 million gun owners in our nation, and not many of them are Progressive Socialists.

"May you live in interesting times"

There were barbarous acts committed during our War of Independence, but the bad actions between British and American forces pale in comparison to the atrocities that American Patriots and the followers of King George committed upon each other--civil wars are the ugliest.

Is that were we are heading?

 

[Boatwrench]

We are on the razor's edge of massive civil disobedience and armed resistance, and I am so glad that there are about 100 million gun owners in our nation, and not many of them are Progressive Socialists.


Is that were we are heading?

I believe your question is a topic for another thread.

I also believe that the citizenery will just carry on with their lives after the vote tomorrow in the House of Representatives. It took about 3 weeks for the majority of Americans to get on with their lives after 9/11. Why should I expect the vote on healthcare be any different? The last report of polls heard on the drive in to work this morning was the House of Representatives was dead even at 214 votes for and 214 against the passage of the latest version of healthcare reform.

 

[XJEEPER]

It really boils down to what biased media source you listen to.

I wouldn't miss Rush if he left.....and your statement is inaccurate. If this legislation passes it is a first step, Obama has said this multiple times, as have the other Progressive Socialists.

If they get this legislation in place, it opens up the governments ability to contol even more of our lives and take over more industry. It's right out of the Socialist Playbook.

Scare the masses into thinking that Big Insurance is the "enemy" and that you have a solution that will shield them from this "enemy".

This lines up directly with Saul Alinsky's Tactics........

Tactics​

"Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. ... Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves." p.126

Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):
1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)


Place party on the shelf and step outside the box.

This isn't a battle of Reps VS Dems......it's a battle for Freedom VS Bondage.

 

[Boatwrench]

I am already in bondage, I don't sign my own paycheck.

 

[DrMoab]

Hey Jeff, did you know Tom will be at the Geostash this year? You really should come, the campfire conversation will be epic!

 

[Boatwrench]

Hey Jeff, did you know Tom will be at the Geostash this year? You really should come, the campfire conversation will be epic!

That would be cool.

 

[RichP]

I wonder how it would work out if they doubled the health care tax on all democrats that backed it as of the first of the year in 2009 so they can't quick switch parties.

 

[XJEEPER]

The Obama Administration’s Chief Actuary at HHS cannot provide cost analysis of latest Democrat health spending bill before the vote

Chief Actuary: ‘I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.’

WASHINGTON, DC – The Obama administration’s chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) notified Republican leaders Saturday that the “very tight time frame” and “complexity” of the Democrats’ health spending bill would prevent them from fully analyzing the costs and efficacy of the bill before the House voted on the legislation. The letter was in response to a request from House and Senate Republicans.

The Chief Actuary, Richard S. Foster, wrote: “In your letter, you requested that we provide the updated actuarial estimates in time for your review prior to the expected House debate and vote on this legislation on March 21,2010. I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.”

Foster and his staff analyzed the Senate-passed bill and determined that it bent the cost curve up, estimating in a January 8 report that national health expenditures would increase by an estimated total of $222 billion, and that the additional demand for health services “could be difficult to meet” and “could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.” Foster, in his letter today, expects the new health spending bill to be “generally similar.”

Bottom line, the Obama Plan will increase healthcare costs and reduce benefit options for Medicare recipients.

 

[DeftwillP]

What do they need an actuary to look at it for; Obama has already stated what it will do. Don't you believe him?

That story above about calling your congressman is pure insanity. I should feel lucky that my congressman (Rep John Carter) is vehemently against healthcare and pretty much everything Obama says.

 

[goodburbon]

Someone has to stop this train wreck! Socialism is not a tenant this country was founded on.

 

[goodburbon]

I'm watching the debate hoping that the democrats spontaneously combust.

Here's how I see it.

Cap premiums, unlimited payout, no preexisting conditions. All sounds wonderful, but it will kill the insurance business within the next 10 years and the government will be "forced" to rush in and save the day.

 

[XJEEPER]

I'm watching the debate hoping that the democrats spontaneously combust.

Here's how I see it.

Cap premiums, unlimited payout, no preexisting conditions. All sounds wonderful, but it will kill the insurance business within the next 10 years and the government will be "forced" to rush in and save the day.

It's all planned......the Progressive solution is a setup for the failure of the industry and one more arrow shot into the heart of Capitalism.

Social Justice and Wealth Redistribution sounds great, until the middle-class dumb-asses that voted for Obama discover that it's their wealth that he will be taking.

 

[Boatwrench]

This will get interesting.

 

[XJEEPER]

"The American people know you can't reduce health care costs by spending $1 trillion or raising taxes by more than one-half trillion dollars.

The American people know that you cannot cut Medicare by over one-half trillion dollars without hurting seniors,"
"And, the American people know that you can't create an entirely new government entitlement program without exploding spending and the deficit."

A historic day indeed.........God Bless America.........Socialism has arrived.

atriot:

 

[Darky]

If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.
I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.

And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.
From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there's pride in every American heart,
and its time we stand and say.

That I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

And I’m proud to be and American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

Wonder if they'd feel the same today...