Obama going back on his word on health care?

As Sen. Barack Obama bashed Hillary for being a proponent of mandated health care for all Americans.

"She'd have the government force you to buy health insurance," he said Feb. 23, 2008. "I disagree with that approach. I believe that the reason Americans don't have health care isn't because no one's forced them to buy it, it's because no one's made it affordable."

However, in Obama's words, his thinking has "evolved" on the issue. How conveinient, since he isn't trying to get elected anymore.

"People have made some pretty compelling arguments to me that if we want to have a system that drives down costs for everybody, then we've got to have healthier people not opt out of the system," the president told ABC News.

Stop going back on your word. The only "compelling" argument is the fact that there is no way to pay for this! And that the only reason your thinking "evolved" into taking away people's right to decide if they want coverage or not, is becaus if you don't fine people, you can't pay for the program!

Obama also stressed that there will be some sort of waiver for those who just can't afford it.

"Those who can't afford it" has been defined in the Kennedy bill as families up to 300-400% above the poverty line. That's families making up to $60,000-$75,000. Do you think those families "can't afford it?" Of course they can! It's just another way to get more people enrolled on the plan. Stop going back on your word when it is politically conveinient to do so, or better yet, say what you mean the first time so that people know where you stand.

Some more notable quotes from the ABC special

Sawyer asked Ron Williams, the CEO of Aetna Insurance, "Is the president right that you need to be kept honest?"

"It's difficult to compete against a player who's also the person refereeing the game," Williams said. He proposed working to "solve the problem as opposed to introduce a new competitor who has rule-making ability."

"We will have some up-front costs," the president acknowledged. "And the estimates ... have been anywhere from a trillion to $2 trillion. But what I have said is whatever it is we do, we pay for."

"About a third of the costs will come from new revenue," the president said, pushing his proposal to raise taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year through a change in the itemized deduction in the tax code.

The president cited the Mayo Clinic as an example of a medical center where experts had figured out the most effective treatments and eliminated waste and unnecessary procedures.
Sawyer said that e-mails ABC News had received argued that "the Mayo Clinic is exactly the point," indicating that private companies are solving this problem, and raising the question as to why the government needs to get involved

"And, unfortunately, government, whether you like it or not, is going to already be involved," Obama said, citing Medicare and Medicaid.

Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care

Oh yea, incase you don't know this, the president and congress are specifically exempt from any public plan, according to the Kennedy bill.

source

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/Story?id=7919991&page=4

Regulation Without Representation

The left is for bigger government. They want more regulations. We all say these things and use these two arguments when talking conservative vs liberal politics. However, "big government" and "more regulation" are vague ideas. Congress and the President cite statistics from bipartisan committees for every issue imaginable. President Obama even uses statistics that aren't kept, such as jobs saved or created by the stimulus. One statistic you won't here them put positive spin on is the cost of complying with their regulations. There are several reasons for this, most obvious is that there is no way you can positively spin the massive cost of compliance and still get re-elected. Second, to make sure no one has to be held accountable for this, they don't keep records of cost of compliance. So in honor of the Cap and Trade bill that's about to be voted on Friday, here are a few numbers to put a "price" behind "more regulation. Note to ABC, considering there is a vote on the Cap and Trade issue in 2 days, don't you think it would be best to hold your lets-get-the-whole-story-so-important-robust debate-all sides of argument-from inside the white house-no opposition present-all day marathon coverage on Cap and Trade, not Health Care. Or maybe, just maybe, is the health care thing being used to distract the public from the biggest tax increase in history?? (through regulation of big business of course, but it's for "the common good.") Transparency? What happened to doing away with slipping things through in the middle of the night.

From the Competitive Enterprise Institute annual report

Last year Congress passed and the President signed into law a total of 285 bills. Yet federal regulatory agencies issued 3,830 "final" rules. The total regulatory compliance costs of all these regulations hit $1.172 trillion in 2008. That's almost as much as Uncle Sam raised in individual income taxcollections and three times the $345 billion in corporate income
taxes

"61 federal departments, agencies, and commissions have 4,004 regulations in play at various stages of implementation … 180 are 'economically significant' rules, packing at least $100 million in economic impact." (rules not in play yet, but coming)

"it largely amounts to agency self-policing; agencies that perform 'audits' of their own rules would rarely admit that a rule's benefits do not justify the costs involved." (when you do here numbers from the government about complying with their regulations, it's from the government agency employing the regulations)

So, transparency anyone? Why does the government not issue a report on this? We elect them, they force regulation after regulation on the public sector, and they don't compile a report on how their regulations affect the people who elected them. They report on stimulus statistics that aren't even kept, that are just made up, and the public media eat it up. These people need to be held accountable. If they want to pass a regulation, they need to be forced to tell the public what it is going to cost. And when a cost analysis comes out that doesn't fit their mold, I don't want that agency attacked and belittled..Chris Dodd. This is just the beginning, with health care and cap and trade in the works, it's not looking good. I don't believe you, President Obama, when you tell me passing the most regulative 2 programs in the history of the United States won't increase my taxes or cost me money, because the facts show a different story.

source:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/fact-and-comment-opinions-steve-forbes.html

Video - Chris Dodd's Arrogant Opinion of the CBO

Sen. Boxer's comments showed their elitist opinion they have of themselves, but Sen. Dodd's interview is worse. Just watch and see how he reacts to the numbers put out by the CBO for the Kennedy Health Care bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKudw9PL2Mk

It's as if he doesn't like some beaurocrats telling him what to do, how much to spend, how to spend it etc..sound familiar GM, AIG...except the CBO doesn't tell anyone what to do, they just offer a bipartisan cost analysis. I bet GM, AIG and the American public wished Dodd and the other congressional "beaurocrats" only offered an "analysis' instead of a bailout.

The Health Care Lie - Keeping Your Coverage

As Senator, and now President, Barack Obama has proclaimed adamantly that

"you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress
give themselves," and "if you like your current policy, you can keep it."

Just remember that as I go over a few facts about Congress, their health care and how those statements are not only misleading, but a flat out lie. I can appreciate his eloquent ability to parse words, but when you lie to the face of the American people, it's unacceptable.

From the Affordable Health Choices Act, drafted by Sen. Dodd & Kennedy

- Specifically exempt are members of Congress and federal employees (section 3116)

Exempt. Say it again. Members of Congress are exempt. They do not have to follow the same rules we do. If this type of health care is the best system for the country, then why would members of Congress and the federal government not be required to participate? They will be allowed to keep their wide selection and best coverage, while everyone else will be required to enroll in a "qualified" plan. If Congress' plans fell into the "qualified" category, then they would not need a specific exemption to the health care bill.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management says members of Congress "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country," and "can choose from among consumer-driven and high deductible plans that offer catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles, health saving/reimbursable accounts and lower premiums, or fee-for-service (FFS) plans, and their preferred provider organizations (PPO), or health maintenance organizations (HMO)."

- If you don't enroll in a "qualified" health plan and submit proof to the federal government, you will be fined. (sections 3101 & 6055)

"Qualified" means that it meets all of the criteria placed into the legislation, and whatever additional criteria are added by the Secretary of Health and Human services once the bill becomes law.

- If you are already enrolled in a plan that is payed entirely by you or your employer, you will still be fined if it is not a "qualified" plan. (section 161)

So "technically" they are not lying to you when they say you can keep your coverage. I love semantics. So does the government, especially when it comes to cheating on your taxes. We cheat, we go to jail, government officials cheat, it was an "honest mistake." Just ask Wesley Snipes.

- The cost of the fine will be enough to "accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage. (section 161)

How big will the fine be? One aide working on the bill says it will have "penalties eventually reaching 75% of the cost of the least expensive plan." So who decides who pays a fine and who gets free coverage, paid for by those paying the fine? What if your 25, just out of school and don't want/need a plan and would rather use the money to pay off school loans? Oh that's right, paying off debt is bad old-world policy of the past, just ask SC Gov. Mark Sanford.

- The bill suggests that only plans with managed-care controls such as "medical-home" will meet the definition of a "qualified" plan. (sections 3101 & 2707)

In December 2008, a Congressional Budget Office report on drafts of major federal health care bills noted "medical-homes" were very likely to be like the HMOs of 20 years ago, especially if cost control is a priority.

- In the Kennedy bill, "medical-home" providers will have a "payment structure" based on "incentives" rather than payments for each doctor visit or procedure. (section 3101)

This report focused on a specific type or requirement called a "withhold." HMOs would hold back 10% or more of the fees it paid a physician, and only pay back the money at the end of the year to physicians who met specific goals for limiting how many referrals to specialists or diagnostic tests their patients used.

The goals were so strict, that if a physician exceeded them, the cost of what he prescribed to you would come from his own pocket at the end of the year. This creates a conflict of intrest between you and your doctor. I don't want my doctor worried about paying penalties or facing fines when it comes to making decisions about my health! People complain about Police Officers "having to make their quota". This is the same thing, except that it deals with your health and well being.

President Obama recently said "if doctors have incentives to provide the best care, instead of more care, we can help Americans avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments and tests that drive up costs."

That sounds great, but what's the incentives he's talking about? Not having to pay fines and penalties for providing "more care" than the government allows? I want my doctor worried about me, not his wallet. Often times, the "best care" is "more care," and I don't want my doctor being told by the government how much of either to provide.

source

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536864955329439.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Only President Obama can fire someone for doing their job

Politicians are supposed to be working for us. We elect them, they do what is in our best interest. Not that it works that way or anything. So however long ago, the position of Inspector General was created. These people make sure that government money is being spent the way it was ment to be by the companies that received it. Great right, people making sure those politicians are doing what they are suppose to. Not exactly, considering they are appointed by the same people who can fire them. Huh? Ok, well there must be some rules or something right, because if they have that much control over these people then why even have them to begin with? It's not like the government has ever created the illusion of watching its spending or being transparent..rigggght. Well crawl out from under that rock for a minute, and go take a peak at that bill Obama co-sponsored last year that requires "the president to give Congress 30 days' notice, plus the cause for the firing of an inspector general." Now that's some change! See, he is making it difficult to fire these people, so they can really get in their and cut out that waste and expose these corrupt politicians! That's some "political courage." He's got a pair of stones that would make Terminator proud.

Oh sorry for that last paragraph and wasting 3 minutes of your day, I just returned from hope and change fantasy fun-house. A lawyer responding to the firing of AmeriCorps IG called the move an act of "political courage" by the white house. The only thing courageous about that move wasthe hay-maker to the jaw of the Constitution from Obama. Yea, the guy was called out of the blue and given 1 hour to resign or be fired. He had a real pair and told them where they could put it. He was fired. Congress was notified after the fact, without any explination. This same lawyer mentioned that "he was not working well with the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, and the administration believed that IGs should work well with the leadership of their agencies." What? He is investigating the company for illegal activities and fraud, on the behalf of the american people and their tax dollars. Is the IRS nice to you when you put $80,000 under your matress, or forget to report that $10,000 bonus? I don't care how "well" he worked with the board, that's not his job. His job is to investigate them, not befriend them. Oh yea, he was looking into illegal activities that had ties to the President.

"In this case, the board and top management were unhappy with Walpin's aggressive investigation of the misuse of federal AmeriCorps funds by Sacramento, California mayor -- and prominent Obama supporter -- Kevin Johnson. The board was also unhappy with Walpin's probe into the waste of AmeriCorps money at the City University of New York."

Remember, the board, the people the IG is investigating as that is the purpose of the IG position, are the one's who got him fired. Yea, that makes a whole lot of sense..

Here is a list of questions asked to the President's special counsel
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/NEW-White-House-refuses-to-answer-Senates-questions-on-AmeriCorps-IG-firing-48285832.html

Video - Single Payer Health Care the Real Goal?

No no, of course not. That's what President Obama and the Democrats keep saying. As Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said "time to reaffirm our commitment to access to quality, affordable health care for every American, including the 47 million who live in fear of even a minor illness..." And as she has proven lately, Pelosi has proven to be an ambassador of the truth, never once misleading or lying to anyone. Unless that someone is the CIA. So in case you accidentally drank some of Obama's kool-aid, thinking it was your Gatorade, and think the Public Option is only for those 47 million, watch this video to see what their intentions really are.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/26696/#

Who are the 47 million uninsured?

There are two numbers I here on TV everyday. At any given time you can find some politician or "journalist" throwing one of these two numbers around, using them like some sort of trump card that immediatly ends the debate. Question the "numbers" behind the numbers, and you are certain to be labled a hate-monger with no compassion. So what are these pocket aces, these two magic numbers that guarantee you a win over your opponent? 47 million, and 95 %. 47 million being the number of people uninsured, and 95% being the number of people who received a tax rebate. Yes, I said rebate, because receiving a check is not the same thing as having your tax rate lowered. So in light of the current health care debate, I'm taking a closer look at the "numbers" behind the 47 million uninsured Americans.

- 9.5 million are not United States citizens

- 17 million, 37%, live in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, afford their own coverage.

- 18 million, 40%, are between the ages of 18-34, most of which are in good health and not necessarily needing coverage, or chose not to purchase it.

- 50% of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in any giver year regained their insurance within 4 months.

- 70% of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in any giver year regained their insurance within 12 months.

- $116 billion the 47 million received in health care in 2008.

- 37% of the $116 billion paid by the uninsured.

- 26% of the $116 billion paid by the government and charities.

- 37% of the $116 billion absorbed by the hospitals and doctors, or shifted to higher private insurance premiums.

- 250 million, the number of Americans with insurance that will be negatively affected
by politicians pushing a progressive agenda by misleading the public.


So the next time you hear the number 47 million Americans, remember, it's followed by numbers like 9.5, 17, 18, 50, 70, 116, 37, 26, and 37.


Sources
"Liberty and Tyrany" by Mark Levin
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/15/wrong-way_health_reform_96997.html

Video - Fed Chairmen Bernake..Wrong about Everything?

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/26747/

This is a compellation of statements made by current Fed Chairmen Bernanke from 2005-2007. In it, he makes predictions on the housing bubble, the future of the economy, regulators, the auto industry, market liquidity, the subprime marke and several other key issues that have surrounded the recession over the last few months. Oh yea, spoiler alter...his predictions are completely wrong on every single one of these issues. If this were baseball, he would be batting 1,000..for being a complete idiot. Speaking of baseball, I bet he was 1 of..well the only person on earth with a body temperature of 98.6 to not predict the steriod era in baseball.

Video - Glenn Beck on Obama's Czars

Glenn Beck summing up the argument against Obama's Czars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwmRsayLwKE

Great Lakes Czar - Cameron Davis

"One challenge Davis will face is making sure the federal money is used effectively - particularly when the government already has about 140 programs dealing with the Great Lakes environment." This quote, from an article on Davis by John Flesher of the AP, pretty much sums up my argument...this position is absolutely rediculous.


WHO- Cameron Davis is a 23 year veteran of environmental activism. He is the current President of Alliance for the Great Lakes, a Chicago-based environmental group.

WHAT- Davis will coordinate with 12 or so other federal agencies already dealing with the Obama administrations Great Lakes project. These agencies deal with things like invasive species, harbor pollution, overflow from sewage, and the destruction of wild life habitats.

HOW- Alliance for the Great Lakes, along with other environmental groups in the region, are pushing for a $20+ billion restoration program for the area.

- President Obama has currently pledged $5 billion over the next 10 years for the plan.

- His current 2010 budget waste no time in making good on his pledge, adding an additional $475 million in NEW spending for the Great Lakes.

- This $475 million will push federal spending on the Great Lakes to MORE than $1 billion a year.

"Other spending would include $105 million for habitat and wildlife protection and restoration; $97 million for prevention of near-shore pollution such as farm runoff and erosion; $60 million to battle and prevent invasive species; and $65 million to evaluate and monitor the initiative's progress."

"Some of the specific goals include: restoring 23,000 acres of coastal, wetland, shoreline and upland habitat for wildlife and 1,000 miles of streams for fish passage; removing up to 1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments; and cleaning up sources of contaminants at over 100 beaches that were closed five or more days in 2007."

WHY NOT- This quote from George Kuper, Council of Great Lakes Industries director, makes you wonder if he knows his foot is in his mouth. "It may not be obvious, but what is good for the ecosystem is also good for the economy." Really? If you actually believed that you would not have had to preface it with "It may not be obvious." I'm not even going to waste my time looking up the countless policies that are "good for the ecosystem" that would absolutely wreck the economy. Ok, I'll give you one. Cap and trade. Ok, that doesn't count, because we really have no idea what impact greenhouse gases have on the environment. Not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars a year in "revenue" it is expected to generate. That "revenue" is also called "your tax dollars," because the federal government can only get revenue from tax dollars. I also won't waste my time wondering whether or not he is going to balace environmental issues with business issues, because I think we already know the answer to that.

We are giving a life long environmental activist free reign to inact his agenda on other government agencies. Because of course, those 140 government programs that ALREADY exist, and the 12 that he will be directly overseeing, couldn't possibly function without MORE oversight. And I'm sure he knows best how to run each one of those programs better than their acting directors. I don't even know what to say about the numbers above regarding money spent for certain things.

$65 MILLION to "EVALUATE" the program to make sure it's useful?! If it's not, please lie to me Mr. Davis! Because then I would know you wasted even more money to tell me something I already knew.

Source: http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/15/2820301-obama-wants-to-pump-475m-into-great-lakes-cleanup

How to Gain More Control - Obama Style

Want more power or control? Who doesn't. It's easy, just ask the President.

Step one, create another beaurocrat.
Step two, make sure they only answer to you.
Step three, have your media team say it is all about cost cutting and efficiency.
Step four, give the position some intimidating name, like Czar or Dictator.

And there you have it, the 4 easy steps employed by President Obama to appoint his Czars. The claim is that one person will be able to "streamline" a multitude of programs and agencies to make them more efficient. WHEN has the government EVER made anything more efficient by adding a new beaurocrat, who has an unspecified budget and answers only to the President?

The reality is that by appointing a Czar to oversee ANYTHING allows the President to fund that particular sector as he pleases and without Congressional oversight. These other agencies have to answer to Congress and abide by the budget alloted to them. But a Presidential Czar can do anything he wants with the money given to him by the President. He doesn't have to explain anything to Congress, or even get its approval. If he does not like what one agency is doing, he can pull their funding and give it to another agency.

It is a blatent POWER GRAB, taking control of multiple government agencies and placing them in the hands of one person. And this one person answer only to one other person, President Obama.

Czar of the day

The title of this post is really pretty self explanitory. However, in the name of "transparency", I will explain a little further. Not knowing any of the new czars, I decided it would be a good idea to find out a little about them. Figuring you, the public, would also like to know who is helping to govern the free world, I came up with the "Czar of the day" idea. I hope to answer questions like who are they, what do they do, what did they do before their appointment as czar, what is their purpose, who do they answer to, and how do they influence policy. It will be a "Top 10 facts" theme. Today's edition is coming up shortly. Get ready to be informed...and confused....and probably a little mad too.

Video - Transparency

Jake Tapper invites Robert Gibbs to discuss transparency. What are your opinions on this Q&A?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-4qEz1vea0

President Obama's Czar's

Did you know that he has increased the number of czars for an administration by 400%, just 100 days into office. Do you know what these officials, appointed directly by the President, do? These are just a few of the questions that came to mind when I learned of the most recent Czar appointed by President Obama. The Transparency Czar. His job description reads "to clarify the actions and policies of President Obama and members of his administration." The President is already coming through on his promise of transparency! He appointed someone, who answers to no one but him, to tell us what is really going on! Doesn't that sound great? I didn't think so. Don't worry, there really is no such thing as a "Transparency Czar," at least not yet. There isn't really a need for one anyway. No one questions anything coming from President Obama's or his administration anyway. If they do, other sources attempt to marginalize them with accusations of racism, fear-mongering, partisanship, inciting hate, being bitter, or being a right-wing nut.

So I will take it upon myself to do the extra digging, fact checking, and simple research required to provide the real "transparency" promised by President Obama. I now appoint my self the unofficial Transparency Czar of this administration.

First order of business, find out about the actual Czars of the Obama administration. I hope to answer questions like who are they, what do they do, what did they do before their appointment as czar, what is their purpose, who do they answer to, and how do they influence policy. Below is the list of Czars as of a week ago. I have seen list with a few more, but haven't been able to confirm an exact number. Because I can't provide a little "transparency" about all of them at once, because I have a life and do this as a hobby, I will try and do a "Czar of the day" post. This will include a "Top 10 Facts" theme that will hopefully answer the questions I mentioned above.

Drug Czar - Gil Kerlikowske
Energy and Environment Czar - Carol Browner
Homeland Security Czar - John Brennan
Health Czar - Nancy-Ann DeParle
Urban Affairs Czar - Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
Economic Czar - Paul A. Volcker
Regulatory Czar - Cass R. Sunstein
Technology Czar - Vivek Kundra
Government Performance Czar - Jeffrey Zients
Border Czar - Alan Bersin
WMD Policy Czar - Gary Samore
Intelligence Czar - Dennis Blair
Car Czar - Steven Rattner
Pay Czar - Kenneth R. Feinberg
Great Lakes Czar - Cameron Davis
Cyber Czar - TBA

In fairness to POTUS, I'm sure past Presidents had more than their fair share of Czars too. Nixon started the trend with 1 Energy Czar. Ok, fair enough, trends have to start somewhere. On to Reagan, 1 Drug Czar. H.W. Bush 1 Drug Czar. Clinton a Health, Drug, and Aids Czar. G.W. Bush an Intelligence, Cybersecurity, Aids, and Drug Czar. He's already increased the number for an administration 400% and it is only going up.

Health Care

Coming soon!

Immigration

Coming Soon!

The Constitution

coming soon!

Faith

Coming Soon!

The Founders

Coming Soon!

The Welfare State

Coming Soon!

Global Warming

Coming Soon!

Foreign Policy

Coming Soon!

The Economy

Coming Soon!