-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 102 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
The Right Prescription
Waiver Goodbye to Obama
No matter what he’s selling, states know there’s no way out of the fiscal trainwreck that is Obamacare.
The strings attached to President Barack Obama’s Monday offer to allow state waivers out of certain Obamacare requirements are designed to earn Obama political credit for appearing flexible while restraining states from actually implementing any programs that might avoid the fiscal train wreck imposed on them by Obamacare
President Barack Obama suggested that he is willing to give states a way out of some of Obamacare’s most onerous requirements in 2014, three years earlier than allowed under an existing provision in the law. But much like the Obama administration’s refusal to move for expedited Supreme Court review of his signature “achievement,” the president’s offer to the National Governor’s Association, “If you have a better way of doing it, help yourself,” is a ploy to gain time for his federal takeover of the health insurance industry to become so ingrained within the federal government’s power that it becomes all but impossible to eliminate.
Obama’s “offer” is a poisoned bait which Republicans must not even nibble on.
While a well-intentioned governor focused on keeping Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid from bankrupting his state might be inclined to request a waiver, there are two key reasons he (or she) should avoid that temptation:
First, it will increase rather than decrease the chances that we remain forever saddled with massive federal involvement in health insurance. Second, the availability of these statewide waivers is a mirage.
A waiver allowing a state to implement its own plan would require at least the following of the plan:
• Cover as many people with health insurance as Obamacare.
• Insurance coverage at least as “comprehensive” as under Obamacare.
• Insurance just as “affordable” as under Obamacare.
• No increase in the federal budget deficit.
Unfortunately, while any one of these provisions might be theoretically achievable by a state, doing all of them will prove impossible, at least without bankrupting that state. More importantly, since the impacts will have to be estimated in advance rather than measured retrospectively, analysis of and decisions about state plans will be every bit as politicized and fudged as the numbers bandied about regarding Obamacare itself.
For example, the Obama administration claims that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the official name of Obamacare, will cover 32 million currently uninsured Americans. While some of that would certainly happen because of the plan’s massive increase in Medicaid, the estimate also includes people whom the administration believes – or at least claims to believe – will buy insurance because Big Nanny tells them to. However, the penalty for not buying insurance is so much lower than the cost of insurance that the plan is likely to cover far fewer people than claimed.
If a future administration’s Secretary of Health and Human Services is as blind to reality and as subservient to the political wishes of her boss as Kathleen Sebelius is — and what political appointee won’t be? — the federal government will simply estimate the state’s plan to cover fewer people than Obamacare does and deny the waiver — especially if the requesting state is “red” rather than “blue.”
The impact on the federal deficit will be even easier to game. After all, any administration that could with a straight face claim that Obamacare will reduce the federal deficit could claim that the moon is made of green cheese — or that a state’s plan is worse for the federal budget than PPACA is. And any Democrat administration will do just that if a state’s plan poses a perceived threat to the federal government’s involvement in health insurance. Obamacare is, after all, more about power and vote-buying than about a quality health care system for our nation.
PPACA’s wishful thinking about “affordable” and “comprehensive” insurance is based on massive government subsidies and the cynically rosy assumptions typical of the Obama administration. (Who can forget that if we passed the “stimulus,” unemployment would stay below 8%?) No state can afford similar subsidies which will be needed to provide insurance covering every ailment under the sun, every pre-existing condition, and almost every person in the state. In other words, no state will be able to meet the waiver provisions while also keeping health insurance as “affordable” as PPACA because states can’t redistribute income on the scale that the federal government does to mask the true price increases.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (119) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/02/waiver-goodbye-to-obama
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Razing Reagan
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Inside the Gates of Eden
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 3.2.11 @ 7:08AM
Which part of Unconstitutional do these idiots not understand. Why the article? This prez is well aware of the fact that if it were to , and I can see it going to the Supreme Court, be declared Unconstitutional, its all another hot air issue with this pretender-n-thief. Wow a whole article regarding an argument not even allowed in this Republic. It continually amazes me as to the bullcrap this fraud puts out on a daily basis, and some really believe it deserves an argument and stand by ready to argue issues of a non-issue. Good grief people, wake the hell up.
A. C. Santore| 3.2.11 @ 9:58AM
I'm old enough to remember the two different Medicine Shows that visited my home town every year. Each was an event to look forward to, and their arrival sent a buzz throughout the town.
We all stood there and marveled at the songs and patter, and listened in appreciation as he used his eloquence to sell the same bottles of something he said he had learned from a great Native American Medicine Man, good for every ailment known to man.
All of us were there for the entertainment, but some of us actually bought the stuff.
Obama is directly in that classic Medicine Man mold. And so has been our collective response.
He, too, is selling his snake oil to "cure" every ailment (real or imagined), except that he's not just scamming us out a dollar here and there, but doing it in the trillions, and he's ruining our country.
vtwin| 3.2.11 @ 11:19AM
It’s was obvious, with an estimated 50 million Americans under the age of 65 in 2009 without healthcare insurance; the free enterprise healthcare system had failed and with the American people demanding a solution from the government President Obama unlike his predecessors couldn’t continue to ignore the problem.”Obamacare” though not perfect is the law of the land. So, if the right to affordable healthcare for ALL Americans doesn’t fit your ideology, I’m sorry but you’ll have to get used to it because a few loudmouth teabaggers in temporary control of House of Representatives aren’t going to change it.
KyMouse| 3.2.11 @ 12:08PM
Millions of those people under 65 are young people who feel invincible and don't want to pay any share of their medical coverage. And who knows how many others are people who just plain don't want to pay for it at any age. Emergency rooms are brimming with both kinds of folks.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 2:29PM
I work in the industry, and I must admit, you are the first person I've ever heard call it "healthcare insurance." So you either a trailblazer in the industry, or just an average idiot that doesn't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm assuming the latter.
Sid Vicious| 3.2.11 @ 3:13PM
You have the temerity to call this train wreck "the law of the land" when hundreds of waivers and dispensations of relief have already been granted well before its first anniversary? With this many exceptions shooting holes through it, PPACA sounds less like a statute and more like the Law of The Great and Powerful Uhhh every day.
john dubose| 3.5.11 @ 9:53PM
A law which can be negated for specific indidual entities by ONE person is ( in a practical sense ) one man rule. Otherwise known as tyrany. On that basis alone, it violates ( at least the spirit of ) the constitution. This claim of authority is MUCH worse than the health care bill.
somnolence| 3.2.11 @ 3:31PM
No, we really don't have to get used to it because there are too many ways to get away from it. For instance, it is much cheaper at ANY interval to pay the fine if you're in consistently good health, it's easy to avoid purchasing it if you don't work and only live off of banks savings accounts that are not technically salary, and first and foremost, don't kid yourself----there will be strength in population numbers that won't abide by it, and authorities who are besieged already with crime, drugs, and illegal aliens won't knock themselves out enforcing it. Like hell it's the law of the land!
stan redmond| 3.2.11 @ 4:03PM
50 MILLION? Why can't the liberal lap dogs get the number right. It's 30 million, 20 million 50 million. How many is it?
And how is health insurance a right? How is affordable healthcare a right? Healthcare is a liberal invented right, not one endowed by (as Obama disdains saying) "our creator." Your rights end when it sticks it's fingers in to my right ofprivate property...AKA my wallet and a doctor's salary.
I suggest you study the effects all the government regulations have had on the cost of health care. Talk about a government enforced disaster.
Donnie| 3.2.11 @ 4:13PM
It is TEA PARTY, not a stupid term the almighty one-term Obama and you "his idiot follower" say. The Republicans will retake the Senate and White House in 2012 and get rid of the Obama care, Union thugs and ship off the DUMOCRATS like you to some god forsaken country where they want a socialist government. Have a good trip you moron!
ILMan| 3.2.11 @ 4:33PM
Sorry but you are wrong here. The current system works great - its the federal governments tinkering that has caused costs to go out of control. There is no tort reform or anything meaningful in this bill that would control costs. Any person can get care and affordably if they work with their Dr's , hospitals and health care providers.
No we will have rastions and waiting lines.
Its a disaster waiting to happen for all involved.
soggy| 3.2.11 @ 11:34PM
Actually it is not the law of the land, at least not in the states that won a victory in federal court, in those states the whole law was found to be unconstitutional.
Letscheck| 3.3.11 @ 3:04AM
Obamacare is the fuel ignited by Obama to burn down this nation and the Republic.
Anyone who believes that the Senator from Chicago who spent his entire time in Chicago, using the poor to get more money, which the poor didn't see but his friends got...do not have a clue about this man.
Could everyone please research Obama's background in Chicago. He is a liar, a manipulator, and he does it all to get benefits for himself and his friends.
Nothing he does is to benefit the poor or the middle class or anyone outside of his circle.
Tigers don't change their stripes and neither has Obama. He has just learned how to lie better.
Anita| 3.3.11 @ 11:13AM
Well, won't I laugh when after two years the States have to foot the bill. My, my won't your taxes absolutely sky rocket.
Hope ya'll are rich. Oops, Where's Wally wants that too.
Good luck.
Budman| 3.3.11 @ 11:27AM
When you start with the "teabaggers" rhetoric you loose all credibility.
DJ| 3.3.11 @ 6:21AM
Does the President have the power to grant waivers for "the law of the land?" He seems to just pick and choose which laws he will enforce and which he won't whether it's DOMA or his own Obamacare.
Alan Brooks| 3.2.11 @ 5:17PM
"No matter what he's selling, states know there's no way out of the fiscal trainwreck that is Obamacare."
It might very be Obama is prodding private charity to do more.
You think?
if you don't think you are your brothers' and sisters' keepers, please throw your Bibles away and vote libertopian.
Mike| 3.3.11 @ 9:16AM
Alan,
I feel bad for you. People keep using your moniker to say the stupidest things. It must be annoying.
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
Mimi| 3.2.11 @ 7:29AM
We just can't COPY the Europeans.....why can't the President see that. Yesterday we discussed trains today it's States taking over Obama-care.
vtwin| 3.2.11 @ 12:31PM
Now Obama wants to stick the Federal Government’s nose into American’s transportation Systems?
Here’s quick list I recall from high school history:
Erie Canal (Circa 1820)
First Transcontinental Railroad (Circa 1860)
Panama Canal (Circa 1910)
Interstate Highway System (1956)
MikeD| 3.2.11 @ 11:26PM
VTWIN:
I see you're back trying to make sense of things. I told you before to learn something before you got you mouth (or keyboard) flapping. The Erie Canal was built by private business. The Transcontinental Railroads were built by private companies. Ihe only part the govt. had in it all was the land grants they gave to the railroads, among other groups, like homesteaders. The government did nothing in the process of building the railroads.
The Panama Canal was built by an internatiuonal consortium of companies after T. Roosevelt illegally started a revolution in panama allowing it to separate from Colombia. The interstate Highway system was built by private companies in the states under block grants under the Defense Dept. and a small bit of grants through the Commerce Dept. But, it was designed and built by PRIVATE COMPANIES. Everything the govt. touches costs more, takes longer, and gets screwed up.
You are a perfect example of the democratic base: uneducated, ill-informed, and ideologically driven by misusing the facts you got wrong in the beginning.
The only reason the govt. ever got into healthcare was because the govt. itself screwed up the post WW2 economy, and, when wages were frozen, companies looked for other ways to compete for workers. They stumbled onto health insurance; but even then, it was only for "Catastrophic" situations, and was called "Major Medical". You'd be much more respected if you demonstrated some awareness of history and economics. But, since I've always felt that you're either a foreigner, or a student; we can't expect you to know much; a state of affairs you confirm every time you get on this site.
Unfortunately, there are millions like you; and they vote, almost always democratic. Kinda like the moron who professed to be a Wisconsin teacher who left a lasting impression of stupidity by screaming "FOX LIES!" over and over on camera. I sure would want HIM teaching my kids! (Yes, that was sarcasm, Vtwin. Check the dictionary for the meaning of the word.)
vtwin| 3.2.11 @ 12:39PM
Is it your ideology or stupidity that obfuscate reality?
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 2:31PM
Your ideology is this: There's a problem. I don't know what caused it, but Obama said this will fix it, so THAT is the law of the land.
Sid Vicious| 3.2.11 @ 3:15PM
"Stupidity" is a tall accusation coming from someone whose rectum perennially blocks his view.
Alan Brooks| 3.2.11 @ 6:21PM
You can't elect cons who aren't statists anymore? Is the subtext consrevatism is dying but you can't admit it? you have to in effect say read my lips, no new statism so your families can get money forked your way instead of others' families?
22 years, 1 month, 10 days since the Gipper left office, but you still haven't Found yourselves. So you cast about for someone, besides Him, to Save you.- and "Him" doesn't mean Reagan.
martin j smith| 3.2.11 @ 7:32AM
For me, Rule # 1 for Obama is to assume he is lying until proven otherwise. And goodness sakes when will people who write and who hear Obama speak assume this as a given.
Someday someone will stand up and tell him to his face: YOU Mr President are a liar !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
J.C.Eaton| 3.2.11 @ 9:03AM
Your Rule rules.
Sam Levi| 3.3.11 @ 3:50PM
Bin Lyin is a lawyer.
How do you know when a lawyer is lying?
He's breathing.
martin j smith| 3.2.11 @ 7:47AM
Just to be very clear: Application of rule #1 refers to any POLICY issues not an issue of going to the Men's Room for example---yet even there...
Mattled| 3.2.11 @ 8:13AM
Everything this NAMBLA man/boy says is a lie. Period. What agitates me now more than ever is that Conservatives take him seriously (think Michael Medved and BOR, even Krauthammer).
He should not be taken seriously----even though he's present, er I mean president. He doesn't mean anything he says. Period.
At every turn, there should be some way to say; We appreciate Mr. Obama weighing in, but here is the solution. Marginalize him. Let Felton hold him in contempt every week on the drilling by issuing statements like; Mr. Obama continues to be in contempt of court. Until he lifts the ENTIRE moratorium, he is in contempt. Thank you.
Defund, defund, defund.
He would implode with anger. Media? Who cares---just put out press release. No questions, no interviews, just hammer him with two sentence statements.
winterhawk| 3.2.11 @ 8:22AM
Anyone that would trust anything that he has to say is in need of phsychiatric help. He's a serial liar and will lie about everything and anything to push his communist agenda.
PaulD| 3.2.11 @ 8:36AM
There's something I don't understand here. ObamaCare, as we all know too well, was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by the President-Pretender. It's a very bad law, but the law nonetheless. I know judges have ruled it unconstitutional, but The Great O has deigned to ignore them. So, my question is this: by what right does The Great O "offer" to let the states make deals about it? He isn't a dictator (at least not yet, officially anyway). He doesn't have the right to willy-nilly change the law on the fly, even if that "offer" is just BS. ObamaCare should be repealed by Congress, period. Sorry for my ignorance, and it's a rhetorical question.
Da'ud Maud'dib| 3.3.11 @ 4:21PM
You are forgiven for your ignorance. Yes it is the law of the land, yes judges have ruled it unconstitutional and yes the President is ignoring those judges' rulings. Now, for the rest of the story. It is the law of the land and the United States House of Representatives passed a bill, the United States Senate passed a bill. The two houses passed reconciliation and the President of the United States signed it into law. In order for it not to be law then one of two things have to happen the Supreme Court has to declare it unconstitutional or congress has to repeal it. To imply that the president is wrong for ignoring what lower courts say, waiting for the Supreme Court to rule, is showing your ignorance. To refer to the duly elected president as President-Pretender is showing your ignorance and to pretend that presidents don't make deals with governors with the expectation that they can convince congress to go along is showing your ignorance. Yes, there are legitimate policy differences please don’t muddy the waters by calling the President names, pretending that he wasn’t and isn’t doing what he promised to do in the campaign or pretending that his presidency is somehow illegitimate. Unless you are a birther, in which case neither common decency nor logic mean anything to you, you should stop. If you voted for him and have become disillusioned because he is doing what he said then sit down, be quiet and actually listen to what the candidate says the next time you vote. If you didn’t vote for him but of McCain remember he and those who believe in his vision won and stop winning just do to the Senate and the Presidency what you did to the House and vote in those who agree with you. Lastly if you didn’t vote for him because you didn’t vote. Sit down, be quiet and do your civic duty next time. Ignorance should be forgiven then corrected. Stupidity can be neither forgiven nor corrected.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.2.11 @ 8:46AM
'nuff said, guys.
crooked wren| 3.2.11 @ 9:00AM
And what can Scott Brown bring to the table? RomneyCare isn't much better'n ObamaCare. Ask Tennesseans about TennCare. It's not much better.
And, as PaulD asks, how can the President just step in and grant "waivers" to laws? How can Sebelius grant waivers to big corporations? states? (Which has already happened.)
And how can the American people continue to be duped by this man who refuses to show his long-form, official birth certificate? I know. I know. That's "crazy talk."
Of course, there are intelligent state legislatures that are working on a vetting system for future POTUS's. You know, a vetting system that at least requires an actual birth certificate.
And maybe, since I have to show my college transcripts when I get a job, Obama could be made to reveal HIS to, say, the state legislatures? the Congress? the Senate?
But -- I digress.
Or do I?
Isn't that part of the point? How does Obama manage to make Congress and the Senate irrelevant? He does it. Every time he wants something done. If Congress and the Senate don't go along, he just goes past them -- Executive Orders or Regulatory Expansion.
It's UnConstitutional. End of story.
Da'ud Maud'dib| 3.3.11 @ 5:25PM
I’m sorry you elected such weak republican leaders that they would allow the President to make them irrelevant. I am sorry you have such weak leaders in the republican party; leaders who would let someone who obviously isn’t an American usurp their duly elected candidate, move into the white house and nominate and place people into cabinet positions. I’m sorry you allowed former republican presidents to send such weak men to the Supreme Court that they let an unqualified man usurp the Constitution of the United States, a constitution that clearly states who can and who can not be president. I’m sorry that the Republican Governors and State legislators are so weak that they continue to take their orders from someone who they believe is a pretender to the White House and from a republican party leadership who won’t remove said pretender and install the duly elected republican president before the pretender can ruin our country with socialist programs. Oh, I don’t mean the socialist programs that we already have like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, police departments, fire departments and public education, those we love. I mean the dreaded one, ObamaCare, ObamaCare that works to insure that all Americans have health coverage that I don’t have to foot the bill for, ObamaCare that makes sure that insurance companies use the majority of payments to pay for our healthcare and not the multi-million dollar payouts they currently give to their executives, ObamaCare, that interferes in our personal business, stopping us from going bankrupt because of medical bills as is our right, that socialist program. The fact that 52% of the electorate elected him, the democratic Senate and the then democratic House is irrelevant. This must be stopped by proving that he wasn’t born in Hawaii despite what the doctors say, despite what the hospital says, despite what the state says and despite what the papers said days after he supposedly was born there. This must be stopped despite the fact that all the attempts to bring this before the courts have been dismissed out of hand, this must be stopped.
RacerJim| 3.2.11 @ 9:16AM
Civil War or Military Coup. Let's pick one and just DO IT!
vtwin| 3.2.11 @ 12:47PM
What, democracy not working for ya?
rdman| 3.2.11 @ 1:04PM
How about Articles of Impeachment?? How's that for democracy working...
Frisbee| 3.2.11 @ 9:50PM
Yes, it seems to me that by refusing to uphold DOMA, the President is AWOL and impeachable.
Da'ud Maud'dib| 3.3.11 @ 5:31PM
Yes you would know because you are a constitutional lawyer who has studied this and know that no other president has refused to defend a law's constitutionality when they believed the law was unconstitutional.
Sorry, I was confused as to who was a Harvard educated constitutional lawyer and who wasn't.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 2:21PM
No, and it never did and it never will. Only a representative republic will work for me.
But how about you democrats with your Mob Rule in Wisconsin?
Funny how you guys call mob rule democracy, and point the finger at us as the "fascists".
Brian Mc| 3.2.11 @ 2:57PM
I do wish they'd learn to pick up after themselves. After all, aren't they the ones who know how to hug a tree and save a whale? Madison is a beautiful city and it's not that difficult to find a trash receptacle there. At least that was the case last time I was there a couple years ago. But then, it's hard to control a mob.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 3:32PM
"Civility for thee, but not for me" is the new slogan for 2012 Democrat Campaign.
Clint| 3.2.11 @ 2:49PM
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1861
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 3:05PM
Yes, this is true. And the reason our country is a republic and not a democracy is, precisely, to protect us from mob rule. There are ways to "democratically" overthrow or dismember our government. For an example, see about the "recalls" on the democratic senators in wisconsin that refuse to participate in this "democracy" of ours.
Clint| 3.2.11 @ 3:31PM
Taxpayers Are The Employers of The Government Union Parasite Leeches.
They Should Fire The Striking Teachers' Union Asses.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 3:33PM
Agreed.
Frisbee| 3.2.11 @ 9:53PM
Careful Clint. You don't want to sound too much like Martin Luther.
"Luther and Zwingli
must be treated singly;
Luther hated peasants,
Zwingli the Real Presence"
Purple Lips| 3.2.11 @ 3:34PM
Democracy surely isn't working for the Dems in Indiana and Wisconsin.
MikeD| 3.2.11 @ 11:31PM
VTWIN;
Once again your ignorance betrays you. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a "Representative Republic". The Founding Fathers were terrified of democracy; they were convinced that the cities, which they loathed, would turn into cesspools of the indolent (look it up.) who would be parasites on the agrarian sector (look this one up too.). That's why they instituted the Electoral College, to reduce to power of the cities. The last thing they wanted was the overbalanced power of the cities screwing up the country; sort of like what has happened.
Alan Brooks| 3.2.11 @ 11:16PM
"RacerJim| 3.2.11 @ 9:16AM
Civil War or Military Coup. Let's pick one and just DO IT!"
Your side lost the last time around, by April 1865.
Sam Levi| 3.3.11 @ 3:54PM
If you really believe that, explain Disney World.
Budman| 3.3.11 @ 11:41AM
How about civil disobedience. Protest enmass
Go to Washington assemble around the capital and demand Obama be impeached and brought to answer why ge thinks he can subverbert the constitution as he pleases.
Pete| 3.2.11 @ 9:26AM
Sounds a lot like the permitting process for offshore drilling. That greasy liar tries to score points in the press by saying the moratorium has been lifted, but the reality is that no new permits are being approved.
George S| 3.2.11 @ 9:26AM
They never stop until they get what they want. If a state or two takes a waiver, it effectively removes the insurance industry from being economically viable in the state. Health insurance is then issued from the state or subsidized by it. Now what happens when a citizen from this state moves to a state that is non-waivered? Does Equal Protection and Privileges and Immunities ring a bell? Now a federal law -- or a court ruling -- can effectively tie government subsidized health care among the states. A back door approach that gets around a federal mandate. No need to worry about the ObamaCare ruling; the time bought not requesting an expedited SCOTUS review enabled the poison to be placed in the state capitols.
Oldefarte| 3.2.11 @ 10:08AM
Fact#1---HE LIES
" #2---The purpose of WELFARECARE was
WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION and to
provide health insurance converage to
FINANCIAL INDIGENTS
" #3---Any/all DEMOCRATS that illegally/
fraudently were involved in its
legislatively being enacted should
be IMPEACHED, LEGALLY TRIED,
CONVICTED AND IMPRISONED!!!
Mimi| 3.2.11 @ 11:08AM
Wow ...O F You sound like you just have HAD IT! I think we are all getting sick and tired of this constant threat of ....What outrage is he gonna come up with next? If only the Supremes would get involved sooner rather than later....This would help. We have to remind ourselves to stay strong and involved and encourage others to do likewise. Stay alert and aware people....our country and future are at stake.....Cheers
Alan Brooks| 3.2.11 @ 11:20PM
Well I'm sick of Bushes, McCains, Doles, and whichever memoir writer or Viagra pitchman you might run in '12.
You wasted the 20 years from '89 to '09!
Sam Levi| 3.3.11 @ 3:56PM
Alan you are absolutely correct, 1992 to 2000 was completely wasted by the Traitor in Chief.
Hillel| 3.2.11 @ 10:25AM
The insurance provision is not the only unconstitutional clause in the Act. Recently a 3% realestate transfer tax (going into effect in 2013) was discovered. As most realestate is local, how can the federal govt. tax it (it's not interstate commerce)?
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 11:15AM
wow... I didn't know about this. Amazing how the govt can manage to simultaneously outlaw interstate commerce of health insurance plans, yet tax them as interstate commerce. Amazing.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 10:47AM
Right on, Ross. Good analysis. I think it all boils down to what you said: "Obamacare is, after all, more about power and vote-buying than about a quality health care system for our nation."
This couldn't be more true. One of the problems with PPACA is that it covers too many people. People that don't understand the connection between coverage/benefits and costs/premiums won't make that connection. So pretty much you have to keep the eligibility requirements the same (covering dependants to age 26) if you want to pass Obama's requirements for consideration.
The republicans don't need to bite on this. If they do, Obama will strike down their plan and say the republicans couldn't come up with a better plan. Or he might just reiterate his previous position that the republicans don't have any good ideas. Either way, its a loser issue.
Republicans should hold their ground on repeal of PPACA. The only way to truly reduce costs is through private sector based reforms. There's plenty that can be done to improve healthcare and make it more affordable, none of which is in the PPACA bill.
The problem is, all these rosy estimates of how many people will be on the state insurance rolls will be offset if not more by the banning of Pre-existing conditions clauses. That's the equivalent of me being able to wait to purchase home insurance while my house is burning. If we could do that, noone will buy it until your house is burning. Same thing with health insurance, if I can buy my health plan after I get sick, and in the meantime, pay a fine that is a fraction of the cost of a health plan, then that's what I will do.
Therefore, the only people left in the risk pool are the people that are already sick. This means premium costs will "necessarily skyrocket."
Everything about PPACA flys in the face of commonly accepted insurance principles.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 10:56AM
Not to mention, any state-based insurance program is another version of an unconstitutional bill.
P.S. Before PPACA was passed, I found a friend of mine WITH a pre-ex condition an individual plan for about $50 a month. Its not that healthcare was that unaffordable before all of this (especially after the last 2 years of 20% increases), its that people DID NOT WANT TO BE INSURED. Many people that don't have health insurance pay $150 a month to play with an Iphone. You can't tell me these people couldn't afford health insurance if they wanted it.
But thats the thing. If somebody decides they don't need coverage, then they shouldn't have to buy it if they don't want to, and they shouldn't be fined either.
This is a matter of Liberty. No more, No less. Repeal is the only option.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 11:01AM
By the way, I can't find a healthy person under 30 an individual plan under $100 in todays market. Compared to a sick person getting coverage for $50 a month before this bill was signed. If that gives you any idea of what covering "an additional 36 million people" is costing you.
I don't expect this steady drip of gasoline on the fire that is rising healthcare costs to slow down anytime soon. Costs will continue to rise until it becomes impossible for employers OR employees to pay for coverage. Once we reach that point the Employee Benefits market is going to collapse and everyone will be forced into the State-run plan.
At that point, our country will officially become the U.S.S.A.
Do you understand the signifigance of repeal now?
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 11:13AM
And if you think I have an interest in this only to save my industry so I'll have a job, think again. All the money is in Property and Casualty anyway!!
vtwin| 3.2.11 @ 1:51PM
Why do we have healthcare insurance and not firefighting insurance or crime fighting insurance? Well, firefighting and crime fighting were historically communal concerns but doctoring was a profession, like whoring, but the problem arose when doctoring, unlike whoring, becoming a lot more complicated (i.e. expensive.) So, some money manipulators sensing an opportunity to exploit the situation for profit developed the derivative we call healthcare insurance. Why are millions Americans without healthcare? For the same reason millions of Americans are without their homes today because the healthcare insurance derivative in search of higher profits for investors is doing for healthcare what the home mortgage derivative has done for home ownership.
The healthcare insurance industry is an expensive and unnecessary failure that’s destroying America and American’s access to healthcare. It’s time to treat healthcare like firefighting and crime fighting. NATIONALIZE IT!
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 2:11PM
There are no "Healthcare Insurance Derivatives". You are highly delusional. All of the concrete evidence regarding nationalizing healthcare says that it will lead to rationing care.
Please don't spread misinformation if you are so highly misinformed on the issue.
Firefighting and police are a matter of protecting the people from lawlessness and disaster.
You can pay outright for your healthcare without insurance if you would like. If you're young and healthy it may be cheaper for you.
Last but not least, grow up. Get a job. Stop depending on your neighbors to pay for your lazy behind.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 2:15PM
And another thing, what made "doctoring" more complicated? You can't even explain it.
Well, I'll tell you why. Legislation is why it has become more complicated. From payroll deductions leading to the group benefits market all the way up to ObamaCare, the U.S. federal govt has made decision after decision to take the direct costs away from consumers and to put them in an insurance plan. But either way you pay for it in the long run.
But to ignorant liberals such as yourself, you see a problem caused by red tape, and you think more red tape is the answer.
GTFOH.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 2:19PM
Idiots like the guy above think that by taking something expensive, and instead of paying for it indirectly and adding a middle man (govt) that will make it cheaper.
I have no patience with such sheer ignorance. Derivatives? Really? Wow... These are the people educating the left on the issues. Its no wonder they get so violent at protests. They don't know what they are protesting so when someone confronts them and they can't explain themselves, the natural reaction is anger.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 2:24PM
Another difference between Insurance and Firefighting and police is: Policing and Firefighting are services. Insurance is protection against financial risk. You don't have to protect yourself against this risk if you don't feel you need to. At least that's the way it was before O'BarryCare
George S| 3.2.11 @ 2:51PM
vtwin,
Can I have a serious discussion with you?
Suppose you owned a restaurant and the local government passed a law that stated any person who is hungry does not not have to pay for his meal if he comes in to your restaurant in "an emergency". Further, the government will reimburse you through tax dollars for the meal you served up.
All of a sudden, 80 percent of your customers are emergency hungers. They come in and order steaks, burgers, chicken -- the works. You then send the government the tab for each meal (you are an honest joe and only submit the menu price). The government waits six months to respond to each chit submited and then only sends 35 percent of the tab.
How can you stay in business?
Simple -- you charge the remaining 20 percent of your customers two and a half to four times the menu price. You cannot refuse the hungry by law so they still come in (especially when the weather is bad and they're not really hungry but want to partake of your heating or air conditioning system). Now you have to pay the utility bills, the taxes -- and lawyers to navigate the Emergency Hunger Act.
How would you stay in business, especially when your paying customers demand the government force you to lower your costs?
Is it you -- and your greedy jacking up the prices on your menu -- or is it the government that created this mess?
There is an analogy here, by the way.
Steve A| 3.2.11 @ 3:00PM
George, Nicely done, sir. When vtwin & his pals talk about the "right to affordable health coverage" what they really mean is "the right to have somebody else pay for your health coverage." This is the reality of the matter.
Ret. Marine| 3.2.11 @ 8:23PM
George, you make too much sense that is scares vtwin to not respond. If you are a newcomer to this site, most will tell you vtwin is not, repeat NOT worth the effort to make any sense to, TROLL ALERT, TROLL ALERT, TROLL ALERT. By the way good analogy. Best wishes. Semper Fi.
Frisbee| 3.2.11 @ 9:56PM
Yes, well done George. I think you fleshed out what PhiltheCP was trying to say.
Purple Lips| 3.2.11 @ 3:38PM
And who said it isn't aleady nationalized? The healthcare and drug industries are more regulated than energy, transportation, and agriculture combined. From the forced implementation of PPOs, HMOs, to 52 seperate regulatory agengies, to a entire slew of regulations concerning Medicare and Medicaid, healthcare is one big sinkhole. And with every regulation these last 65 years, it get worse. All Obama is doing is issuing his coup de grace.
Please don't talk about free markets and health care. That is pure fantasy
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 3:49PM
Good point.
MikeD| 3.2.11 @ 11:34PM
VTWIN;
If you didn't post here they might have to pay somebody to write the drivel you do. You are the best example of the danger of democratic party politics and the personification of the mental midgets that think liberal politics are the right way to go. I actually take some of your posts and send them to other sites as examples of abject stupidity of liberalism. The second graders love you! Don't stop!
Steve A| 3.2.11 @ 2:48PM
Phil, You are right on the $$ there. I am a multi-line Ins. Agent & I just recently took our health products off the menu for my staff. They cut my first year comiss. from 20% to 5% to comply with the 85 /25 rule in the new Obamacare law. I am unable to cover my expense wasting time on this product so I'm out of that business. Give me the P& C renewals & I can continue to hire people.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 3:07PM
I hear ya man. They're are cutting commissions at our agency too. Not that there was much to cut in the EB market anyway. Good thing they haven't eye-balled the P&C market yet!
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 3:55PM
That 85/25 80/20 rule is also driving costs up. I know you know this but to everyone else reading this, the mandatory loss ratios are driving premiums up. An Insurance company would rather give back the profit on the group as a penalty for charging too much over their claims experience, than to charge too little and take a loss on a group.
Before carriers would commonly end up losing money on groups but that would be offset by other groups. Now they charge more and hope the claims catch up to the premiums. They're not stupid, and they sure as hell aren't running a charity.
jolizoom| 3.2.11 @ 3:05PM
According to the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf --see page 29), at my family's income level, we would be paying upward of $19,000/year under Obamacare. Currently we pay around $6400/year. Since we don't HAVE an extra $1000/month (the difference between the CBO estimate and what we are paying now) just lying around waiting for the government to claim it, we would have no choice but to take option C--drop healthcare coverage, and pay the penalty when necessary. If we drop all health insurance and pay the penalty in the event we need insurance, it would cost us around $2500/person.
Even I understand that if enough people choose option C, there won't be any money available to pay for our health care system. I wonder why this is such a mystery to the left.
More importantly, since Obamacare has been ruled unconstitutional, isn't this entire discussion moot?
jolizoom| 3.2.11 @ 3:12PM
Correction, $2500 per person, only in years where someone got catastrophically ill and needed more than just a Dr. visit. Otherwise it would cost us nothing.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 4:01PM
It would cost you in many ways. First of all, if you work, or engage in commerce at all for that matter, you will be taxed. this is a cost.
Second, there are monthly premiums for the govt plan if you choose to join the rolls. The cheapest state for these premiums is GA where its 344 bucks a month. This is a cost.
I'm not sure what the out of pocket max is on those plans but I know the single deductible is $5000 per year. That leads me to believe the family is no less than $10000. This is a cost.
And preventative visits don't constitute "everything except a catastrophic illness".
Office visits and Specialist visits are billed differently that a preventative check up.
Your statement, "Otherwise it would cost us nothing." is troubling. Did you not learn as a child that there is no such thing as a "free lunch"?
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 4:03PM
Actually I do know the plan is an HSA, so the most the deductible can be under PPACA is 11,600 (I think. I know thats close) . And I know its a 5000/10000 deductible plan. Just not sure if the OOP max is the same as the deductible or the max limit under PPACA.
somnolence| 3.2.11 @ 3:52PM
If it ever gets to that insane point, the U.S.S.A., I won't be working anywhere to support it, and would rather die in pain and shock while I isolate myself unannounced miles from family. Yes, I'm that adamant about freedom, and under that scenario of Obamacare fully realized, freedom as we know it ceases to exist.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 4:04PM
I'm with you, brother. I doubt we'll have a hard time recruiting for that fight.
Ret. Marine| 3.2.11 @ 8:28PM
Amen brother for the second time. I'm here itching to give the new 50 a work out. Care to guess what I did in the Corp? I'll put my life on the front line beside all of my brethren of the liberty/Patriot gene pool. If this is what they want, I say "bring it" lets see what they got. My bet is, its over under three months. Any takers?
Intelligent Design| 3.2.11 @ 1:58PM
Obama is telling the governors and the voters that he, as king, can decide what the law means, who will get waivers and who won't, who has to obey the law and who doesn't. I guess he thinks he will continue to do this after he is booted back to being a community organizer in 2012. Obama is subversive.
The only solution is total repeal by Congress or nullification by the Supreme Court. What we need is far less involvement by the federal government in our medical care. Far, far less than we had even prior to Congress passing Obamacare. Obamacare deserves a partial birth abortion, quickly.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 2:34PM
Ever wonder why Auto Insurance is so high? Its mandatory, thats why. They charge what they want. if its not mandatory, uninsured motorists would lose out big in court if they didn't settle, but imagine how cheap auto insurance would be if they had to justify the cost of premiums.
Steve A| 3.2.11 @ 2:53PM
Phil, I'm totally confused by the above. What are you trying to say?? Auto Insurance rates swing drastically from state to state. States with a more conservative legislative environment have costs vastly lower than those with a liberal state climate. Your highest premiums would be found in places like Mass., NJ, Fla, Ca, Michigan etc.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 3:11PM
Exactly, they mandate base levels of coverage, and often times they require over-insurance. That is the cost driver. Not everyone needs $500,000 worth of bodily injury. That's what I was getting at.
Its actually strikingly similar to the claims environment being set up by Obamacare. With mandated levels of eligibility and benefits, its shooting the costs through the roof.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 3:13PM
I moved from Kentucky to Indiana last year. My auto coverage went from 1000 bucks and change every 6 months to right under $500. I have a feeling I didn't need the once a year windshield replacement and the unneccessarily high limits that they require in Kentucky.
Sam Levi| 3.3.11 @ 4:06PM
Also, "No Fault" states are higher. One reason is that if a insurance company pays out all the liability you carry, neither you nor they can be sued for more.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 3:36PM
I work in EB, so forgive me if I come off a bit ignorant when it comes to P&C. Not as ignorant as "Vtwin-kie", but I don't work hands-on with P&C every day.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 3:42PM
Let's face it. Health Insurance was pricey before, but it wasn't THAT bad. It was a manufactured crisis with the end-game being Socialized medicine.
That's all there is to it. How do they say the cost of Healthcare is the biggest threat to our nation? What a joke..
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 3:46PM
But now, it really is a threat to the future of our nation. Maybe some good will come of this incompetent president if we can ultimately have a more market based system that shifts a higher direct cost back to the consumer so some common sense will show back up in the doctors office by the patient.
gliderdriver| 3.2.11 @ 4:07PM
Phil,
you need to find a harder job!
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.2.11 @ 4:21PM
LOL! Hey, Steve can tell ya. The work comes in waves in this industry. Been slow this week, what can I say? :D
Frisbee| 3.2.11 @ 10:01PM
Phil: you're working plenty hard trying to educate us. Thanks.
gliderdriver| 3.2.11 @ 4:01PM
This whole thing is a disaster waiting to happen. Luckly, we have Clarence the the four white boys . They will be able bail this nation out of a terrible plan by simply doing the correct thing. Void the whole bill on a constitutional basis.
Reagan's Penis| 3.2.11 @ 4:39PM
Obamacare is a secret Kenyan Communist illegal alien plot to create Islamic caliphate from Waco to Juarez. The television and Interweb said so.
Your Father's Mustache| 3.2.11 @ 5:51PM
somebody's drunk.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.2.11 @ 4:40PM
Phil,
Please contact me through my publishing agent.
We need to talk.
sales@texassaidno.com
Harley2002| 3.2.11 @ 5:23PM
All this BS. How about our individual right to live our lives the way WE want to? He just forced on us something we do not want. This is not supposed to be a Socialist country. It is not a country that the collective provides for all. It is supposed to be a country where individual rights matter. You Marxists commenting here why not just move to Cuba or some other country instead of trying to destroy the greatest country on the planet for your greed. Yes greed you want the government to provide with something that you do not want to provide for yourselves. I am unemployed and have no health care but prize my freedom over any hand me out from the government.
tuftedtaco| 3.2.11 @ 6:40PM
Hey, taxpayer funded govt. leeches, er... employee's of Wisconsin! Pay for your own damned health insurance, like the rest of us.
karen| 3.2.11 @ 7:26PM
I wouldn't trust anything this group has to say. From shoving the bills down our throats, to suing states, not granting permits re the gulf drilling, I wouldn't listen to anything they say if my hair was on fire. Doesn't Sebelius remind you of Nurse Ratchett????
john a werneken| 3.2.11 @ 7:45PM
And what weould be wrong with taking 10% of the total waealth of this nation away from the thoieves who have syolen it and spending it on the peoiples' health? Nothing. What woyuld be wrong with forcoing akll economic decisions to have to bend to the will of the people? Nothing. What wouyld be wrong with hanging you from a tree? Plenty. It might be construed as a precedent for injuring citizens.
Frisbee| 3.2.11 @ 10:04PM
What's wrong? You wouldn't be "taking it from thieves", you'd be stealing it from honest people. You're the thief!
Sam Levi| 3.3.11 @ 4:08PM
Put down the crack pipe and step back slowly....
Just Sayin'| 3.2.11 @ 10:42PM
Born British?
Then you are not now or never can be -
President of the United States -
See The U.S.State Departments Deceleration on Obama's Citizen status at birth!
Game Over!
Jason| 3.2.11 @ 11:13PM
Drug Wars are un-winnable if we're being honest here. It's common sense.
Jason| 3.2.11 @ 11:14PM
O shit, just finished reading this other article and responded to that piece. smh.
davelnaf| 3.2.11 @ 11:17PM
Very good article. Team Obama is desperate to keep Obamacare on life support until such time as it flowers and brings forth the fiscal ruin that can only be ‘fixed’ with a VAT. Democrats want power, but they want a VAT even more. They have descended to playing cheap political games to keep Obamacare going and along with it the opposition and the public off balance—the higher good and all that. It won’t work. It’s the equivalent of the cheap campaign tricks that Obama played on the voters in 2008 and anyone who thinks that 2010 wasn’t voter payback is as delusional as Obama and Sibelius.
Prudence| 3.3.11 @ 2:55AM
This administration is untrustworthy. Rather than trying to sort out the good fruit from the rotten, there comes a time when it's all contaminated with the corrupt goals. Turn away, and follow new leaders who have shown themselves to be trustworthy and sound thinkers.
lukennedy| 3.3.11 @ 11:43AM
On health care, I can understand why many people feel the best solution would be universal care, because it guarantees cost control, at least in theory. Unfortunately every doctor, nurse, pharmacist, lab tech, drug maker and insurance man will fight Universal Care because it means cost control, again, in theory. In places where there is universal care, there are doctors strikes for higher pay. That is dangerous. And in a time when so many people are already out of work, forcing the shutdown of the insurance industry is ludicrous, not because insurance is good and necessary, but because that would be millions more people out of work. But the costs are out of control. It seems that the cost of cancer treatment is just a way of assuring the industry collects the full potential life-long medical cost of a healthy person out of the sick person; and 1 in 3 people will be diagnosed with some form of cancer in their lifetime.
There has to be a solution that both fills the need for affordable access to care for everyone and provides that same capitalist aim that everyone has whenever they are talking about their own jobs, their own salaries and their own benefits (No Union has ever thought about the fact that through collective bargaining for the few in their group, they have actually forced higher prices for all, thus injuring everyone else and determined that for the benefit of everyone, they should collectively bargain for less, but I digress).
We should consider:
Everyone should have catastrophic coverage, and that catastrophic coverage should be provided universally and equally. This should be provided on the basis of disease, not on the basis of income.
Private insurance should only cover non-catastrophic medical needs.
Doctors should be given their educations for free in return for serving 4 years in family practice in the state paying for their educations (this will bring in more competition between doctors and stop them from turning away patients without insurance, thus freeing up emergency care for actual emergencies).
There does need to be tort reform.
Timely Renewed | 3.4.11 @ 12:37AM
The only sure way to stop not only Obamacare, but the innumerable other ways in which the federal government has increased its power beyond the original scope of the Constitution, is to reverse the 70 year old Supreme Court interpretations of the interstate commerce clause which have expanded the reach of federal power far beyond any original understanding of the scope of that clause and restore the interstate commerce clause to its original meaning. Given how entrenched these Supreme Court precedents are, I believe that this will be best accomplished by a constitutional amendment restating the original, very limited scope of the interstate commerce clause. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
W.P.KOCH| 3.4.11 @ 3:58PM
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
Congress and the White House should stop wasting the people’s money. There are many ways to “cut as detailed herein” and use savings to improve quality of basic invested entitlements. Preserve the 2010 tax schedule with no inheritance taxes. Congress should transition to an improved Medicare. Vote opponents to this “out”. Citizens come first.
It is time the U.S. reduces human rites and police activities for the World by lobbying the United Nations, NATO and Interpol to “take on more”. 800 bases in 63 countries across the world should be reduced. Examples are fewer forces in, Bosnia, Germany, Philippines and Okinawa.
Starting with Iraq, only train for self reliance. After the surge in Afghanistan train and diminish corruption by requiring accounting practices for aid, substituting minerals mining and food crops for drugs.
Cut bloated federal bureaucracy and phase in outsourcing. Combine CDC, EPA and FDA. Combine the FAA, NHTSA and DOT. Combine GAO and CBO. Eliminate Departments “must spend all”. Return “unused” yearly budget to the treasury. Cut combined department budgets (other than entitlements) on an average of 10%. Consolidate federal data centers to eliminate at least 800.
Eliminate all 32 CZARS Mr. president. Reduce your 469 member staff which makes nearly 39 million per year! Halt first lady $180,000 air force one vacation trips. Stop “$200 million per day” presidential-family foreign trips. Cancel $ 20,000,000 executive order (HB 1388) to relocate key Hamas members to U.S.
Contribute to only one of: The World Bank or International Monetary Fund or U.S. Agency for International Development.
Reduce foreign aid bribery. For example, no aid to oil rich -Iraq. $37 billion and increasing with $8.7 billion of development funds not accounted for. Halt $150 million aid to Palestinians. Slash $1.3 billion annually to Egypt.
Charge bailed companies (TARP) for their huge executive bonuses at taxpayer expense. Government should sell shares to recoup for taxpayer. About $154 billion owed.
Congress should reduce “stimulus” expenditures by halting: over budget and vote bribery “earmarks”. Example: Stop “cow burp” study. Take back $13 billion unspent in states. Eliminate subsidies that smell “earmark”. Congress should cut its pay and do not pay student loans for their staff. Please- no renting of private or military aircraft. An example was Pelosi’s family of $2.1 million for over 2 years. Congress should set commercial travel cost standards and controls.
Reduce medical cost by: allowing purchasing anywhere in U.S., “tort reform”, and reducing “red tape”. Reduce Medicare fraud by expediting billing cost speed, and doctor/patient screening of local provider groups.
Congress should enforce existing immigration laws and implement “no illegal birthrights”. Entitlements or benefits should be for only citizens. Deport criminal “illegals”. Only deportees and workers on Visa/Guest Programs qualify for needed medical benefits. Complete an improved fence. 56% of this border is uncontrolled.
These actions will improve funding for:” Medicare”, “Medicaid, and “Veteran’s Affairs”. Corporations should be allowed tax reduction incentives for hiring with healthcare plan options.
Healthcare quality can be at least that for Congress or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Additional benefits are: dental coverage, improved visual coverage, no drug “donut hole”, no pre-existing conditions, and no deductibles and co-pays except for extended skilled level nursing.
Other benefits are aid for unemployment compensation and Social Security with reinstated cost of living increases.
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 6:08PM
The insurance provision is not the only unconstitutional clause in the Act. Recently a 3% realestate transfer tax (going into effect in 2013) was discovered. As most realestate is local, how can the federal govt. tax it (it's not interstate commerce)?