Our Strange President....

polifrog




Newt:

“Let’s accept that he’s a Christian. He’s a Christian whose policies are to apologize to Muslim extremists while they’re killing Americans – at the same time he’s waging war against the Catholic Church and against every Right-to-Life Institution in this country. . . . Why is it he’s more sensitive to radical Islamists who are killing young Americans than he is to the Catholic Church, to Baptists, to Fundamentalists, to people who are pro-Life. I mean, the fact is, this is a very strange Presidency. . . “

A strange president indeed. The fact is that there is a consistent clash between Obama's rhetorical claims and his actions.






out

I Really Hope That Someone Can Agree with Me That Democrat NC Gov. Bev Perdue Did not Tell A Joke:

polifrog




She sure sounds serious. And that makes her "It was a joke" excuse a lie...




Liar.

Stability via tyranny is not stability.




out

Rep. David Price's Albatross (Hucksterism)....

polifrog


ObamaCare is David Price's vote that keeps on giving. Perhaps had he read the bill first he would not have been selling it as a path to lessening the national debt and pain at the wallet. I doubt that, though. At any rate, the passage of time is making David Price look more and more disingenuous in his hucksterism.

Now the "administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn't passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them" according to NRO.

Let us count the ways it hits the national purse (which your purse and mine)....

1. People losing coverage:
About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on MedicareAdvantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.

2. Huge fines for companies:
Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance.

3. Higher costs for consumers:
Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.

4. A program created to fail:
The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”

5. Spending increases:
Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.

6. “Free-riders”:
An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.

7. Spending reductions are fiction:
Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”

8. You can’t keep your doctor:
Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.

9. Coverage but no care:
A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.

Supporters of ObamaCare...Econ 10 flunkies. Every one of them.





out

Rep GK Butterfield (NC-2) -- Rationing Health-Care

polifrog



We were told there was no rationing of health-care in ObamaCare. Politics.
Common sense said otherwise.




When the trust between producer and consumer is broken market distortions occur. Such is the case within the network of laws that is ObamaCare.

Within its pages health-care producers are no longer paid by end users and instead cater to those who do pay them, the more heavily regulated new arm of the government called insurance. The end users who are not required to pay only see free health-care, thus use more of it and use it more frivolously because dollar limitations no longer exist. This stresses supply and drives up costs. Simple and based on human nature.

The only way control way for costs to be controlled when the trust between provider and consumer or end user is broken is to ration the health-care we all receive. Government boards will necessarily do the rationing and when individuals die as a result of their decision not to provide care, then those boards can rightfully be called Death Panels.

A congressman who does not see this does not deserve to be a congressman. GK Butterfield not only joined his party in the denials of Death Panels, but lent his support for them with his vote in favor of ObamaCare. Even based on the most dismal of expectations GK Butterfield has failed to serve North Carolina and should loose his seat in November.

What is it about human nature that so befuddles GK Butterfield? This question alone should mark GK Butterfield as unfit to serve in congress.




out

Rep. David Price (NC-4) -- Voted on ObamaCare without Full Info. Because Obama Hid the Info...

polifrog



Yea, common sense leads to the same conclusion that ObamaCare helps to bankrupt a nation rather than fill its coffers, but here we have the paperwork done for us.

Obama and Kathleen Sebelius sat on information released by Health and Human Services that concluded ObamaCare would actually raise costs until after the vote on ObamaCare....

Poor David Price believed the lies that Obamacare would lower the deficit despite common sense conclusions that said otherwise. Now we see that Obama's administration was sitting on information that would have informed David Price's vote on Health-Care. At any rate, David Price cast an uneducated vote impacting 1/6 of the US economy.

The American Spectator

....Sebelius's staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.

"The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote," says an HHS source. "Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think."

The analysis, performed by Medicare's Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a "nonpolitical" office, set off alarm bells when submitted. "We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff," says the HHS staffer, "and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary's office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report."

Governance through Broken Consent behind closed doors and limited information...The Obama Administration.

Poor David Price; not only did he not understand the bill he voted for, but his party leaders kept him in the dark on relevant information that may have clarified the economic impacts of ObamaCare that were beyond his common sense.

Lesson for David Price....Sometimes leadership calls for leadership and not voting Pavlov like with your party.

Update:

Yesterday, The American Spectator stood by their reporting....

Our sources stand by the facts that prior to final passage of the health care reform bill on Sunday, March 21, the Office of the Actuary had provided senior leaders inside HHS with data that indicated the then-bill would increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on Americans. And that data was not provided to anyone publicly until after the legislation was passed.

...Voted

Why conservatives and Republicans are up in arms over the report of the Medicare Office of the Actuary data is because for years, such information was routinely leaked to the drive-by media to bash a Bush Administration plan or proposal, or to embarrass a Republican official. Now, the data that would seemingly aid in -- at the very least -- generating further debate over a major increase in the size of government was nowhere in sight.

[H/T gatewaypundit]




out

(NC-4) David Price's ObamaCare Continuing to Reveal its Awfulness...

polifrog

David Price of NC happily voted in support of ObamaCare and with that vote laid just as much claim to it as Pelosi, Obama and Reid. Unfortunately for David Price its awfulness continues to reveal itself. Pelosi claimed we would have to pass ObamaCare (in the rush of all rushes) to see what was in it. In that she was correct, as for those congress folks who lent their support to the little read and even less understood bill it continues to do just that.

According to CNN Money:

The new regulations, which kick in at the start of 2012, require any taxpayer with business income to issue 1099 forms to all vendors from whom they purchased more than $600 of goods and services that year. That promises to launch a fusillade of new paperwork: An estimated 40 million taxpayers will be subject to the requirement, including 26 million who run sole proprietorships, according to a report released this week by National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson.

Olson's office, which operates independently within the IRS, flagged the new reporting requirements as one of its priority issues for the next year. Like many who have delved into the details of the new rules, Olson is concerned about their far-reaching scope and potential unintended consequences.

"The new reporting burden, particularly as it falls on small businesses, may turn out to be disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvement in tax compliance," the Taxpayer Advocate Service wrote in a report released this week.

The new rules are aimed at reducing the "tax gap" between what individuals and businesses owe and what they actually pay. The federal government misses out on estimated $300 billion each year from tax underpayment. The expanded reporting requirements, which Congressslipped into the landmark health care reform bill passed in March, are an attempt to create a paper trail of 1099s exposing business-to-business payments that might otherwise stay off the radar.

But the cost of that paper trail could swamp the small companies, sole proprietors freelancers forced to generate it. Pennsylvania business networking organization SMC Business Councils surveyed its members and found that they currently average 10 filings a year of 1099 forms. The new rules would push that average to more than 200 filings per year for a typical small business, the industry group estimates.

Bad for business, bad for you, bad for David Price.

out

Rep. GK Butterfield's Albatross (Hucksterism)....

polifrog


ObamaCare is GK Butterfield's vote that keeps on giving. Perhaps had he read the bill first he would not have been selling it as a path to lessening the national debt and pain at the wallet. I doubt that, though. At any rate, the passage of time is making GK Butterfield look more and more disingenuous in his hucksterism.

Now the "administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn't passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them" according to NRO.

Let us count the ways it hits the national purse (which your purse and mine)....

1. People losing coverage:
About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on MedicareAdvantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.

2. Huge fines for companies:
Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance.

3. Higher costs for consumers:
Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.

4. A program created to fail:
The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”

5. Spending increases:
Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.

6. “Free-riders”:
An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.

7. Spending reductions are fiction:
Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”

8. You can’t keep your doctor:
Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.

9. Coverage but no care:
A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.

Supporters of ObamaCare...Econ 10 flunkies. Every one of them.





out

Rep GK Butterfield (NC-1) -- Voted on ObamaCare without Full Info. Because Obama Hid the Info.

polifrog





Yea, common sense leads to the same conclusion that ObamaCare helps to bankrupt a nation rather than fill its coffers, but here we have the paperwork done for us.

Obama and Kathleen Sebelius sat on information released by Health and Human Services that concluded ObamaCare would actually raise costs until after the vote on ObamaCare....

Poor GK Butterfield believed the lies that Obamacare would lower the deficit despite common sense conclusions that said otherwise. Now we see that Obama's administration was sitting on information that would have informed GK Butterfield's vote on Health-Care. At any rate, GK Butterfield cast an uneducated vote impacting 1/6 of the US economy.

The American Spectator

....Sebelius's staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.

"The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote," says an HHS source. "Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think."

The analysis, performed by Medicare's Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a "nonpolitical" office, set off alarm bells when submitted. "We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff," says the HHS staffer, "and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary's office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report."

Governance through Broken Consent behind closed doors and limited information...The Obama Administration.

Poor GK Butterfield; not only did he not understand the bill he voted for, but his party leaders kept him in the dark on relevant information that may have clarified the economic impacts of ObamaCare that were beyond his common sense.

Lesson for GK Butterfield....Sometimes leadership calls for leadership and not voting Pavlov like with your party.

Update:

Yesterday, The American Spectator stood by their reporting....

Our sources stand by the facts that prior to final passage of the health care reform bill on Sunday, March 21, the Office of the Actuary had provided senior leaders inside HHS with data that indicated the then-bill would increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on Americans. And that data was not provided to anyone publicly until after the legislation was passed.

...Voted

Why conservatives and Republicans are up in arms over the report of the Medicare Office of the Actuary data is because for years, such information was routinely leaked to the drive-by media to bash a Bush Administration plan or proposal, or to embarrass a Republican official. Now, the data that would seemingly aid in -- at the very least -- generating further debate over a major increase in the size of government was nowhere in sight.

[H/T gatewaypundit]




out

Rep. GK Butterfield (NC-1) -- Wrong on Net Neutrality...

polifrog


(h/t redstate)

Why regulate the internet? Why?
I have yet to hear a compelling reason from GK Butterfield or anyone else for regulating theinternet which has no apparent problems.

[Mr. Genachowski] wants to adopt "net neutrality" rules that require Internet providers like Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. to treat all traffic equally, and not to slow or block access to websites.

Have you had this issue? I haven't.


Now the push is again on after "a federal appeals court ruling last month cast doubt on the FCC'sauthority over broadband lines".

The court ruled the FCC had overstepped when it cited Comcast in 2008 for slowing some customers' Internet traffic.

Well, apparently, like Nancy Pelosi in her quest to control our health, no hurdle is too high for theFCC's quest for control.

In a move that will stoke a battle over the future of the Internet, the federal government plans to propose regulating broadband lines under decades-old rules designed for traditional phone networks.

The internet is works fine. It has been a wondrous source of vitality in the United States that reminds me of the United States of 100 years ago. It does not need to be smothered with needless regulation.

Until there is a compelling reason talk of regulation should be dropped. GK Butterfield should step back from his support for net neutrality and put his trust in the American people. That is, admittedly, difficult for GK Butterfield.

We do not need to regulate problems that exist only in the minds of those who wish only to control that which is free.

Fire GK Butterfield in November.



out

Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13) -- Wrong on Net Neutrality...

polifrog


(h/t redstate)

Why regulate the internet? Why?
I have yet to hear a compelling reason from Brad Miller or anyone else for regulating theinternet which has no apparent problems.

[Mr. Genachowski] wants to adopt "net neutrality" rules that require Internet providers like Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. to treat all traffic equally, and not to slow or block access to websites.

Have you had this issue? I haven't.


Now the push is again on after "a federal appeals court ruling last month cast doubt on the FCC'sauthority over broadband lines".

The court ruled the FCC had overstepped when it cited Comcast in 2008 for slowing some customers' Internet traffic.

Well, apparently, like Nancy Pelosi in her quest to control our health, no hurdle is too high for theFCC's quest for control.

In a move that will stoke a battle over the future of the Internet, the federal government plans to propose regulating broadband lines under decades-old rules designed for traditional phone networks.

The internet is works fine. It has been a wondrous source of vitality in the United States that reminds me of the United States of 100 years ago. It does not need to be smothered with needless regulation.

Until there is a compelling reason talk of regulation should be dropped. Brad Miller should step back from his support for net neutrality and put his trust in the American people. That is, admittedly, difficult for Brad Miller.

We do not need to regulate problems that exist only in the minds of those who wish only to control that which is free.

Fire Brad Miller in November.



out

David Price (NC-4) -- Rationing Health-Care

polifrog



We were told there was no rationing of health-care in ObamaCare. Politics.
Common sense said otherwise.




When the trust between producer and consumer is broken market distortions occur. Such is the case within the network of laws that is ObamaCare.

Within its pages health-care producers are no longer paid by end users and instead cater to those who do pay them, the more heavily regulated new arm of the government called insurance. The end users who are not required to pay only see free health-care, thus use more of it and use it more frivolously because dollar limitations no longer exist. This stresses supply and drives up costs. Simple and based on human nature.

The only way control way for costs to be controlled when the trust between provider and consumer or end user is broken is to ration the health-care we all receive. Government boards will necessarily do the rationing and when individuals die as a result of their decision not to provide care, then those boards can rightfully be called Death Panels.

A congressman who does not see this does not deserve to be a congressman. David Price not only joined his party in the denials of Death Panels, but lent his support for them with his vote in favor of ObamaCare. Even based on the most dismal of expectations David Price has failed to serve North Carolina and should loose his seat in November.

What is it about human nature that so befuddles David Price? This question alone should mark David Price as unfit to serve in congress.




out

Rep Brad Miller (NC-13) -- On Abortion and Parental Rights...

polifrog



Only a man bereft of soul could muster the votes cast below....

It would come as no surprise that Brad Miller, a Democrat, supports abortion. Brad Miller is, after all, an unimaginative Democrat Party lemming with a voting record that goose-steps with Nancy Pelosi at near 100% consistency.

But just how pro-abortion is Brad Miller? Just what are his moral limits?

A look at Brad Miller's congressional voting record is warranted.

First up...A bill to prohibit Partial-Birth/Late Term Abortion. Brad Miller voted NO.

(This is) a bill that would prohibit any individual from knowingly performing the procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, in which a fetus/unborn child is partially delivered before it is aborted. The only exception is if the life of the woman is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

Only an extremist could support the ending of ones life before taking his or her first breath while while at the same time being bathed in the air we all breath. This is a vote in favor of infanticide and an example of Brad Miller's deep immorality.


Second....Abortion Pain Bill (Information for the mother not to be) Brad Miller voted NO.

Requires the physician to provide the woman with the following information or material: the approximate age of the fetus/unborn child; the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure"; the possibility that drugs administered to the mother may not prevent pain for the fetus/unborn child; and risks and costs associated with the use of pain-reducing drugs (Sec. 3).

-Requires the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure" to state that evidence exists suggesting fetuses/unborn children 20 weeks or more into development are capable of experiencing pain, and that the woman may request pain-reducing drugs for the fetus/unborn child, and that there may be additional risks associated with the use of some pain-reducing drugs (Sec. 3).

-Allows the woman to waive receipt of the brochure by signing an "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form" (Sec. 3).

It seems to me that if we are to allow the taking of a child's life that we should go out of our way to make sure that there is as little pain involved for the aborted as possible. Death Row inmates are grated this right under "cruel and unusual" when their time comes. Brad Miller, though, does not think that a child rises to the level of a criminal and thus feels perfectly comfortable with a vote that increases the pain of the aborted. Beyond immoral...Sadistic.


Third....The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Brad Miller voted NO.

-Makes it illegal, excluding the minor's parents, to knowingly transport a pregnant minor across state lines in order to obtain an abortion, as a way to escape state laws requiring parental consent (Sec. 2).

Apparently Brad Miller does not believe in parental rights, as those rights may hinder additional abortions. What other reading can be gleamed from such an immoral vote? There is no justification for a politician to limit a law abiding parent's right to raise their child. None. Yet in this vote, Brad Miller expresses his lack of respect not only for the unborn, but for parents as well. Deeply Immoral and not reflective of North Carolina or his constituency.


Not only does Brad Miller not represent North Carolina in these votes, but he does not represent humanity. If he had humanity would have long since been extinct.

Only a man bereft of soul could muster the above votes.




out

Rep. David Price (NC-4) -- Killing charity with taxes...

polifrog

The liberal's war on private charity continues. Governance does not want true and moral charity to compete and sit in contrast to the government's immoral version of charity.

As many as 400,000 nonprofit organizations are weeks away from a doomsday.

At midnight on May 15, an estimated one-fifth to one-quarter of some 1.6 million charities, trade associations and membership groups will lose their tax exemptions, thanks to a provision buried in a 2006 federal bill aimed at pension reform. ...

The federal legislation passed in 2006 required all nonprofits to file tax forms the following year. Previously, only organizations with revenues of $25,000 or more — or the vast majority of nonprofit groups — had to file.

As I have said before, government charity is immoral...

Government taxes are increasingly crowding charity. Dollars that may have gone to The March of Dimes or to The Red Cross or may have been used by one individual to help another are instead absorbed by government. Compare the offices of any charity to the the offices of any Government program and ask yourself if the government's overhead is moral. Compare the way dollars are received by the recipient from the gov. to the way they are received from an individual and ask yourself which is more moral. We are witnessing the death of American charity and liberals call that moral.

out

Rep. Bob Etheridge -- Killing charity with taxes...

polifrog

The liberal's war on private charity continues. Governance does not want true and moral charity to compete and sit in contrast to the government's immoral version of charity.

As many as 400,000 nonprofit organizations are weeks away from a doomsday.

At midnight on May 15, an estimated one-fifth to one-quarter of some 1.6 million charities, trade associations and membership groups will lose their tax exemptions, thanks to a provision buried in a 2006 federal bill aimed at pension reform. ...

The federal legislation passed in 2006 required all nonprofits to file tax forms the following year. Previously, only organizations with revenues of $25,000 or more — or the vast majority of nonprofit groups — had to file.

As I have said before, government charity is immoral...

Government taxes are increasingly crowding charity. Dollars that may have gone to The March of Dimes or to The Red Cross or may have been used by one individual to help another are instead absorbed by government. Compare the offices of any charity to the the offices of any Government program and ask yourself if the government's overhead is moral. Compare the way dollars are received by the recipient from the gov. to the way they are received from an individual and ask yourself which is more moral. We are witnessing the death of American charity and liberals call that moral.

out

Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13) -- Arguing Dishonestly for Health-Care Reform....

polifrog

From The Wall Street Journal we hear that Caterpillar Takes a Hit on Health Care...

Caterpillar Inc. said Wednesday it will take a $100 million charge to earnings this quarter to reflect additional taxes stemming from newly enacted U.S. health-care legislation.

Caterpillar was joined by John Deere in announcing their increased health care costs....

Farm equipment maker Deere expects after-tax expenses to rise by $150 million this year as a result of the health care reform law President Barack Obama signed this week.

These expenses are not ultimately born by the corporations. Whether it's a corporate tax, an environmental tax, a health car tax, or the cost of raw materials and labor, expenses are ultimately passed on to the consumer as increased prices for goods. Not only does this make the citizens of the US poorer,but In a global economy this makes American Corporations less competitive and when they are less competitive they provide fewer jobs. (See GM, Ford) This is yet another step in the great wind-down of America fostered by the progressive movement.


There is no free lunch nor is there free health care and running it through the gov. only exacerbates the costs. It seems that Obama believes otherwise. He even claimed that business would see a 3000% reduction in costs with the passage of his plan.


Leaving aside the ignorance in stating that something would reduce costs by over 100%, Obama lied. I realize that in a storm dishonesty one lie can seem inconsequential, but a lie is a lie and should be called out as such.

Brad Miller supported this dishonesty, the lie that ObamaCare is a cost savings, with his vote for Obamacare.

North Carolina is better than Brad Miller and his support for ObamaCare is an embarrassment for this state. Brad Miller is an embarrassment for North Carolina.

Oust Brad Miller as NC 13 from office this November.





out

Brad Miller NC -- Rationing Health-Care

polifrog



We were told there was no rationing of health-care in ObamaCare. Politics.
Common sense said otherwise.



When the trust between producer and consumer is broken market distortions occur. Such is the case within the network of laws that is ObamaCare.

Within its pages health-care producers are no longer paid by end users and instead cater to those who do pay them, the more heavily regulated new arm of the government called insurance. The end users who are not required to pay only see free health-care, thus use more of it and use it more frivolously because dollar limitations no longer exist. This stresses supply and drives up costs. Simple and based on human nature.

The only way control way for costs to be controlled when the trust between provider and consumer or end user is broken is to ration the health-care we all receive. Government boards will necessarily do the rationing and when individuals die as a result of their decision not to provide care, then those boards can rightfully be called Death Panels.

A congressman who does not see this does not deserve to be a congressman. Brad Miller not only joined his party in the denials of Death Panels, but lent his support for them with his vote in favor of ObamaCare. Even based on the most dismal of expectations Brad Miller has failed to serve North Carolina and should loose his seat in November.

What is it about human nature that so befuddles Brad Miller? This question alone should mark Brad Miller as unfit to serve in congress.




out

Rep. Bob Etheridge's Albatross (Hucksterism)....

polifrog


ObamaCare is Bob Etheridge's vote that keeps on giving. Perhaps had he read the bill first he would not have been selling it as a path to lessening the national debt and pain at the wallet. I doubt that, though. At any rate, the passage of time is making Bob Etheridge look more and more disingenuous in his hucksterism.

Now the "administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn't passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them" according to NRO.

Let us count the ways it hits the national purse (which your purse and mine)....

1. People losing coverage:
About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on MedicareAdvantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.

2. Huge fines for companies:
Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance.

3. Higher costs for consumers:
Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.

4. A program created to fail:
The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”

5. Spending increases:
Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.

6. “Free-riders”:
An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.

7. Spending reductions are fiction:
Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”

8. You can’t keep your doctor:
Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.

9. Coverage but no care:
A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.

Supporters of ObamaCare...Econ 10 flunkies. Every one of them.





out

Rep. GK Butterfield (NC-1) -- Arguing Dishonestly for Health-Care Reform....

polifrog

From The Wall Street Journal we hear that Caterpillar Takes a Hit on Health Care...

Caterpillar Inc. said Wednesday it will take a $100 million charge to earnings this quarter to reflect additional taxes stemming from newly enacted U.S. health-care legislation.

Caterpillar was joined by John Deere in announcing their increased health care costs....

Farm equipment maker Deere expects after-tax expenses to rise by $150 million this year as a result of the health care reform law President Barack Obama signed this week.

These expenses are not ultimately born by the corporations. Whether it's a corporate tax, an environmental tax, a health car tax, or the cost of raw materials and labor, expenses are ultimately passed on to the consumer as increased prices for goods. Not only does this make the citizens of the US poorer,but In a global economy this makes American Corporations less competitive and when they are less competitive they provide fewer jobs. (See GM, Ford) This is yet another step in the great wind-down of America fostered by the progressive movement.


There is no free lunch nor is there free health care and running it through the gov. only exacerbates the costs. It seems that Obama believes otherwise. He even claimed that business would see a 3000% reduction in costs with the passage of his plan.


Leaving aside the ignorance in stating that something would reduce costs by over 100%, Obama lied. I realize that in a storm dishonesty one lie can seem inconsequential, but a lie is a lie and should be called out as such.

GK Butterfield supported this dishonesty, the lie that ObamaCare is a cost savings, with his vote for Obamacare.

North Carolina is better than GK Butterfield and his support for ObamaCare is an embarrassment for this state. GK Butterfield is an embarrassment for North Carolina.

Oust GK Butterfield as NC-1 from office this November.





out

Bob Etheridge (NC-2) -- Rationing Health-Care

polifrog



We were told there was no rationing of health-care in ObamaCare. Politics.
Common sense said otherwise.




When the trust between producer and consumer is broken market distortions occur. Such is the case within the network of laws that is ObamaCare.

Within its pages health-care producers are no longer paid by end users and instead cater to those who do pay them, the more heavily regulated new arm of the government called insurance. The end users who are not required to pay only see free health-care, thus use more of it and use it more frivolously because dollar limitations no longer exist. This stresses supply and drives up costs. Simple and based on human nature.

The only way control way for costs to be controlled when the trust between provider and consumer or end user is broken is to ration the health-care we all receive. Government boards will necessarily do the rationing and when individuals die as a result of their decision not to provide care, then those boards can rightfully be called Death Panels.

A congressman who does not see this does not deserve to be a congressman. Bob Etheridge not only joined his party in the denials of Death Panels, but lent his support for them with his vote in favor of ObamaCare. Even based on the most dismal of expectations Bob Etheridge has failed to serve North Carolina and should loose his seat in November.

What is it about human nature that so befuddles Bob Etheridge? This question alone should mark Bob Etheridge as unfit to serve in congress.




out

Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13) -- Killing charity with taxes...

polifrog

The liberal's war on private charity continues. Governance does not want true and moral charity to compete and sit in contrast to the government's immoral version of charity.

As many as 400,000 nonprofit organizations are weeks away from a doomsday.

At midnight on May 15, an estimated one-fifth to one-quarter of some 1.6 million charities, trade associations and membership groups will lose their tax exemptions, thanks to a provision buried in a 2006 federal bill aimed at pension reform. ...

The federal legislation passed in 2006 required all nonprofits to file tax forms the following year. Previously, only organizations with revenues of $25,000 or more — or the vast majority of nonprofit groups — had to file.

As I have argued before, government charity is immoral...

Government taxes are increasingly crowding charity. Dollars that may have gone to The March of Dimes or to The Red Cross or may have been used by one individual to help another are instead absorbed by government. Compare the offices of any charity to the the offices of any Government program and ask yourself if the government's overhead is moral. Compare the way dollars are received by the recipient from the gov. to the way they are received from an individual and ask yourself which is more moral. We are witnessing the death of American charity and liberals call that moral.

out