Category Archives: Barack Obama

Obamacare: Like Throwing An Anchor To A Drowning Man

Barack Obama, Government, Healthcare, Propaganda, Regulation, Socialism

This might seem obvious to my readers, still, some of the biggest fallacies peddled by Obama in the course of this health care “debate” require repetition. Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute does the dues:

“If you like your current health-care plan, you can keep it.” Even White House spokesmen have said that Obama’s oft-repeated pledge that you can keep your current insurance isn’t meant to be taken literally. The reality is that millions of Americans — perhaps most Americans — will be forced to change insurance plans.

First, the president supports an individual mandate — a requirement that every American buy health insurance. And not just any insurance but insurance that includes all the benefits government thinks you should have. That insurance could be more expensive or include benefits that people don’t want or are morally opposed to, such as abortion services.

[W]hen it comes to claims about the wondrous new world of government-run health care, a bit of skepticism might be in order.

And that doesn’t just affect those without insurance today. The bills now before Congress say that while you won’t be immediately forced to switch from your current insurance to a government-specified plan, you’ll have to switch to satisfy the government’s requirements if you lose your current insurance or want to change plans.

Plus, the president supports the creation of a government insurance program that would compete with private insurance. But because this ultimately would be subsidized by American taxpayers, the government plan could keep its premiums artificially low or offer extra benefit [A point made in Obama’s Politburo Of Proctologists.]

In the end, millions of Americans would be forced out of the insurance they have today and into the government plan. Businesses, in particular, would have every incentive to dump their workers into the public plan. The actuarial firm the Lewin Group estimates that as many as 118.5 million people, roughly two-thirds of those with insurance today, would be shifted from private to public coverage.

“You will pay less.” The Congressional Budget Office has made it clear that the reform plans now being debated will increase overall health-care costs, yet President Obama on Friday repeatedly said that his reform would reduce costs and save Americans money.

But no matter how many times he says it, the truth is you will pay more — much more — both in higher taxes and in higher premiums.

The final health-care bill is expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. That means much higher taxes, and not just for the wealthy.

If one totals up all the new taxes in the House Democratic health-reform bill — the income surtax, the penalties on businesses and individuals that fail to buy into the government health plan, as well as other fees and taxes — the cost to US taxpayers will top $800 billion. New York City will face marginal tax rates as high as 57 percent.

At a time of rising unemployment and economic stagnation, that is like throwing an anchor to a drowning man.

In addition, the new insurance regulations expected to be part of the final bill are likely to drive up insurance premiums. And, if the new government-run plan under-reimburses doctors and hospitals — as Medicare and Medicaid do — providers would be forced to recoup that lost income by shifting their costs to private insurance, driving up premiums. A study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimates that the president’s proposals could increase premiums by 75 to 95 percent.

“Quality will improve.” Anyone who thinks a government takeover of the health-care system will improve quality of care has only to look at the health-care programs the government already runs: The Veterans Administration is overwhelmed with problems, Medicaid is notorious for providing poor quality at a high cost — and Medicare has huge gaps in coverage.

Worse, however, on Friday, Obama endorsed the creation of a government board with the power to dictate how your doctor practices medicine and all but endorsed the rationing prevalent in nationalized health-care systems around the world.

In short, when it comes to claims about the wondrous new world of government-run health care, a bit of skepticism might be in order.”

[SNIP]

Change that last bit to a lot of skepticism.

Used Car Sales Tactics

Barack Obama, Healthcare, Politics, Socialism

SEX. GREED. FEAR. These are the time-honored sales tactics B. Hussein is using in pushing his healthscare Obamination. Who better to vouch for Obama’s used-car sales methods than a used-car salesman entertained on Neil Cavuto’s FoxNews program? B. Hussein got top marks from Cavuto’s car guy for hyping the sex appeal of the deal (cheap, good), for baffling Boobus with the numbers, and for playing on the fears we all harbor about our own mortality, and hammering home the urgency of the “deal.”. I could not find the segment on YouTube, but Don Imus invited Cavuto on his show to talk about it. Listen here.

In last week’s column, “And Now for Something Completely Different,” I mentioned the Mayo Clinic, which, as one of our readers pointed out, Obama had confused with the Mao Clinic:

Obama—who, to paraphrase poetry critic William Logan, never runs out of things to say, only things worth saying—promised that his medical system would be a well-oiled machine much like the Mayo Clinic is. There, “experts have figured out the most effective treatments and eliminated waste and unnecessary procedures,” preached the president.

Unlike Mephisto’s Medicare, the key to Mayo—and many such private not-for-profits—is not the all-knowing, demigod experts. Mayo clinic operates as smoothly as it does because it is a private clinic, where market forces and a mission combine to motivate dedicated entrepreneurs and professionals to minimize losses and maximize profits, so as to plow these back into an organization in which all are invested.

What’s the government’s mission? To keep Americans in the missionary position?

Well, what do you know: as the Washington Times reports, this superb clinic is panning Obamacare.

And Now For Something Completely Different

Barack Obama, Economy, EU, Healthcare, Iran, Neoconservatism, Politics, Regulation, Russia, Socialism

A girl has to have some fun: In my new WND.COM column, “And Now For Something Completely Different,” I invite you to laugh along about the EO (The European Onion), “A-Jad,” Geithner (the gift that keeps giving), and Obama who “never runs out of things to say, only things worth saying”:

“Although Obama has appointed more czars in six months than Russia’s Romanov Dynasty had occasion to anoint over three centuries, he is still missing a Vegetable Czar. If he acts quickly, Barack might be able to recruit a cheap VC with experience from The European Onion (formerly the EU).

The EO has been regulating fresh produce for quite some time. Duly, the Brussels Sprouts that run the Continent had barred “curly cucumbers, crooked carrots and mottled mushrooms – any odd-looking fruit and vegetables” — from Europe’s markets and supermarkets

But things are about to change. As the BBC News reported in a burst of good cheer, “July 1 marks the return to our shelves of the curved cucumber and the knobbly carrot.” Indeed, Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has finally disavowed the rules that were introduced to ensure common standards among EU vegetables, “but are regarded by critics as examples of Euro-madness.”

Said the Patron Saint of ‘wonky’ vegetables…”

The complete column is “And Now For Something Completely Different.”

Miss the weekly column on WND.COM? Catch it on Taki’s Magazine every Saturday.

Update III: Obama’s Route To Economic Revival (A Stake Through The Heart Of The Economy)

Barack Obama, Debt, Democrats, Economy, Healthcare, Media, Socialism

A straitjacket is where this man and his followers belong. And where Bush before him should have been placed. For as much as the beaus and bimbos of FoxNews and their loyalists wish to forget, Bush paved the way for Barack’s Bacchanalia—“The unconstitutional campaign finance-reform bill and ‘Sarbanes-Oxley Act’ (a preemptive assault on CEOs and CFOs, prior to the fact of a crime); the various trade tariffs and barriers; the Clintonian triumph of triangulation on affirmative-action; the collusion with Kennedy on education; the welfare wantonness that began with a prescription-drug benefit that would add trillions to the Medicare shortfall, and culminated in the Kennedy-countenanced ‘New New Deal’ for New Orleans, for which there was no constitutional authority; the gold-embossed invitation to illegals to invade, and the ‘camouflaged amnesty'”—Barack wishes he’d done all this, but these were Bush’s babies.

Back to the bastard du jour : The New York Times editorializes approvingly on what Obama’s health care “reform” will accomplish:

It will “require virtually all Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. And it would require all but the smallest businesses to provide health insurance for their workers or pay a substantial fee. It would also expand Medicaid to cover many more poor people, and it would create new exchanges through which millions of middle-class Americans could buy health insurance with the help of government subsidies. The result would be near-universal coverage at a surprisingly manageable cost to the federal government.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2015, 97 percent of all residents, excluding illegal immigrants, would have health insurance. The price tag for this near-universal coverage was pegged by the budget office at just more than $1 trillion over 10 years — at the low-end of the estimates we’ve heard in recent weeks.

The legislation would pay for half that cost by reducing spending on Medicare, a staple of all reform plans. It would pay for the other half by raising $544 billion over the next decade with a graduated income surtax on the wealthiest Americans: families with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $350,000 and individuals making more than $280,000.” …

Update I: Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee (led by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), who, as far as I know, did less than nothing to highlight the evils of their Boy Bush’s prescription drug program, have developed the following organizational chart to illustrate the efficiencies built into to the Democrats’ healthscare politburo. Since the image, never the program, is quite small, check it out here.

Update II (July 17): “In total, CBO estimates that enacting [Obama’s healthscare) provisions would raise deficits by $1,042 billion over the 2010-2019 period.” But the CBO and the JCT hope that the net increase in the federal budget deficit of enacting H.R. 3200 will be only a meager $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period. That’s because of some “savings” the Act affords.

“That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill’s insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those
10 years.”

Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director of the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, who conducted the analysis of “H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” summarizes the Act’s mandates:

The legislation would establish a mandate to have health insurance, expand eligibility for Medicaid, and establish new health insurance exchanges through which some people could purchase subsidized coverage. The options available in the insurance exchange would include private health insurance plans as well as a public plan that would be administered by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services. The specifications would also require payments of penalties by uninsured individuals, firms that did not provide qualified health insurance, and other firms whose employees would receive subsidized coverage through the exchanges. The plan would also provide tax credits to small employers that contribute toward the cost of health insurance for their workers.

I must say, I’m quite impressed with the CBO. Just the facts, ma’am.

Update III (July 18): Warns economist Peter Schiff: “the economy is walking dead anyway, and this measure is the equivalent of a stake through the heart.” From “Prescription for Disaster”:

“[T]taxing the rich to pay for health care for the uninsured is the wrong way to think about tax policy and is an unconstitutional redistribution of wealth. While the government has the constitutional power to tax to “promote the general welfare,” it does not have the right to tax one group for the sole and specific benefit of another. If the government wishes to finance national health insurance, the burden of paying for it should fall on every American. If that were the case, perhaps Congress would think twice before passing such a monstrosity.

In the second place, the bill is just plain bad economics. For an administration that claims to want to create jobs, this bill is one of the biggest job-killers yet devised. By increasing the marginal income tax rate on high earners (an extra 5.4% on incomes above 1 million), it reduces the incentives for small business owners to expand their companies. When you combine this tax hike with the higher taxes that will kick in once the Bush tax-cuts expire, and add in the higher income taxes being imposed by several states, many business owners might simply choose not to put in the extra effort necessary to expand their businesses. Or, given the diminishing returns on their labor, they may choose to enjoy more leisure. More leisure for employers means fewer jobs for employees.

More directly, mandating insurance coverage for employees increases the cost of hiring workers. Under the terms of the bill, small businesses that do not provide insurance will be required to pay a tax as high as 8% of their payroll. Since most small businesses currently could not afford to grant 8% across-the-board pay hikes, they will have to offset these costs by reducing wages. However, for employees working at the minimum wage, the only way for employers to offset the costs would be through layoffs.”

Read the complete column on Taki’s.