Harry "Kamikaze" Reid

This scene is from Ohio, but it is being repeated all over the nation. The government promised to deliver over 100 million doses of H1N1 vaccine by now, they have delivered barely a fifth of that total. My fiance's nephew, who due to asthma is considered high risk, received a dose last week, but it was too late. We found out yesterday that he has contracted H1N1 and at 7 years of age will be quarantined to his room to keep his family from becoming infected. Since we saw him on Friday, when he was technically contagious, my fiance and I are hoping our contact was brief enough to spare us the ordeal that is swine flu. The inability of the government to deliver vaccine and the long lines that develop when some becomes available give a taste of what will happen if the government becomes responsible for providing our health care.

Yesterday Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the public option will be included in the Senate bill. It's somehow fitting that since Halloween is this week that the public option has returned from the dead. Gallup just released a poll that shows a majority of Americans do not support the public option and more importantly know that it is more trick than treat. They know it is going to cause their health care costs to go up and their access and quality of care to go down. Obamacare isn't the only thing polling poorly these days, Harry Reid's re-elect numbers are in the toilet. So why is he putting his seat in the Senate in jeapardy to push an unpopular plan? Simple. Harry Reid considers nationalizing health care and the power it will give the government over the lives of Americans' worth the risk. He's also counting on his "opt out" faux federalism provision for states to muddy the issue with the voters; its faux federalism because the taxes to pay for this boondoggle can't be opted out of. How many states are going to "opt out" of a system that their residents will still have to pay for? His ace in the hole is the campaign contributions that he'll receive from the activist left that demands a route to single payer as part of any health care reform legislation. The Reid campaign has already promised a scorched earth campaign next year and they will have the money to make it a reality.

Currently the Democratic Kamikaze caucus stands at two, Reid and Alan Grayson (D-Fl) in the House. How many Democrats from center right districts or states will join the Vegas gambler, Searchlight actually, in his high stakes plan? The Democrats only need to convince a few more members to join their suicidal caucus to make government run health care a reality.

Stimulus or lack thereof, by the numbers

This chart of job losses by state was put out by the republicans on the House ways and means committee. Congrats to North Dakota, the only state to add jobs since the stimulus billed passed. So what happened to those 3.5 million new jobs the Obama administration promised would materialize if we borrowed and spent 787 billion dollars? Veronique de Rugy explains on reason.com:
"Since then, Romer has told CNBC she couldn’t say for sure how many jobs would be created, since we can’t know what would have happened without the stimulus. But didn’t her report pro-ject what would happen if the stimulus wasn’t passed? Wasn’t the 3.5 million number supposed to be the difference between employment with the stimulus and employment without it?
The confusion flows from the faulty theory underlying the stimulus bill. In Keynesian thought, a decline in demand causes a decline in spending; since one person’s spending is someone else’s income, a fall in demand makes a nation poorer. As a poorer nation cuts back on spending, it sets off another wave of declining income. So any big shock to consumer spending or business confidence can set off waves of job losses and layoffs, as fewer goods are demanded and more workers become useless.
Under this logic, one possible remedy is for public spending to take the place of private spending. As government increases its spending, the money creates new employment. That, in turn, spurs those new workers to consume more and prompts businesses to buy more machines and equipment to meet the government-induced demand. Economists call this increase in aggregate income the “multiplier” effect. One dollar of government spending, the theory goes, ends up creating more than a dollar of new income. It’s a rare free lunch.
As appealing as the Keynesian story sounds, many economists have long doubted it. In 1991, looking across 100 countries, Robert Barro of Harvard presented historical evidence that high government spending actually hurts economies in the long run by crowding out private spending and shifting resources to the uses preferred by politicians rather than consumers. For a dollar of government spending, we end up seeing less than a dollar of growth. Can long-term poison be short-term medicine?".
If you don't want to take the republicans' numbers as proof of the stimulus bills failure to stimulate job creation. I offer the governments' website http://www.recovery.gov/. According to the Obama administration, stimulus spending in Massachusetts has created 584 jobs while spending $47,620,000. That's $81,541 per job.

To check out the job loss numbers on the above chart just click to enlarge.

Obamacare stumbles out of the gate

The fight to nationalize health care began in earnest today in the Senate and the Democrats lost the first round. The Democrats attempted to remove a funding provision to the tune of 247 billion for Medicare out of the health care bill. Because in the Democrats' world paying doctors for their services to Medicare patients has nothing to do with health care reform. Reality just slapped them in the face. They lost the vote 47-53. Not only did Olympia Snowe stand up against their underhanded tactics, which is a miracle in itself, but Sens. Feingold, Bayh, McCaskill, Conrad and Webb all Democrats voted against leadership. They were joined by Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who while solid in our battle with radical Islam is usually a reliable vote for Harry Reid and the Democrats when it comes to fiscal matters. Now Harry Reid has to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to fix the payment structure for doctors without raising the cost of his health bill above the magic trillion dollar threshold. Because the president promised not to sign a bill that adds one dime to the budget deficit. I have it from a reliable source that he pinky swore this promise to the American people, so there's no way he will break that pledge. Right Mr. President? There are many more battles to come, but the first round goes to those who value the freedom of the individual.

Scorecard

Friends of Deval: 3 Regular Joes:-91

By Dave Wedge | Tuesday, October 20, 2009 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Local Politics


Photo by Herald file
Gov. Deval Patrick has issued pink slips to nearly 100 state Department of Conservation and Recreation workers but spared a high-paid trio including the sister of his campaign manager and her two pals, the Herald has learned.

DCR Commissioner Rick Sullivan confirmed 91 workers have been let go, including some who held their jobs for years.

But Patty Vantine - the sister of Gov. Deval Patrick’s campaign manager and state Democratic chairman John Walsh - and two friends she hired are not among those hitting the unemployment line.

“The whole process is unfair,” said Sen. Richard R. Tisei (R-Wakefield). “Scores of people have used political connections to get their jobs and they’re going to use their political connections to keep their jobs as well.”

Vantine, a former accountant for the state Democratic party, was given a $20,000 raise last year that bumped her pay to $105,000 when she was promoted to a top DCR administrative post.

The Herald reported in May that Vantine hired her friend and Abington neighbor Kathleen Reilly to an $83,000-a-year administrative post. Reilly previously had worked for the state for 18 years but was a stay-at-home mom until Vantine brought her back onto the state payroll earlier this year.

Vantine also hired her Abington neighbor Kevin Whalen, a former analyst for State Street Corp., to a $68,000 “waterfront coordinator” position.

Walsh did not return a call. Sullivan said the DCR layoffs were “targeted” and several departments were eliminated. Most of the cuts affected union workers and were done by seniority. Vantine, Reilly and Whalen, who have given a combined $2,000 to Patrick’s campaign, evaded termination because they’re valued non-union managers, Sullivan said.

“These individuals are skilled, experienced professionals who hold key management responsibilities,” Sullivan said. “DCR is lucky to have them.”

Among the cuts were forest firefighters, golf course managers, marketing and graphic arts professionals and environmentalists.

“Obviously none of these decisions are easy,” Sullivan said. “Unfortunately, I think this is a permanent situation . . . and I am certainly not prepared to say this is even the end of it. But we’ll continue to do the best job we can with the resources we’re given.”

Tisei said the retention of the three highlights how Patrick has “larded up all the state agencies with high-priced political appointees.”

Mass GOP executive director Nick Connors said, “Jobs should be based on what you know, not who you know. Government should not be raising taxes to fund hack jobs when people are losing their jobs.”

Explaing the value added tax

This video takes an in depth look at what effects the VAT will have on our economy. Nancy Pelosi has already stated that a "VAT is on the table". The democratic program is to grow the government first and then find the money to pay for it later. The VAT is the only means to close the budget deficits they are creating. The only other option is to make your voices heard and prevent the democrats from growing the beast. Time is running out.

Part five: Obamacare puts you on welfare

"This Morning Bell is the final installment of a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.Lost in all of last weeks headlines on how the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) finally delivered a health care product that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was willing to say would reduce the deficit, was how exactly they achieved it. At a price tag of $829 billion, the SFC ’framework’ will reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 29 million, moving the overall percentage of nonelderly Americans with health insurance from 83% in 2010 to 94% in 2019. But of those 29 million with new insurance coverage, almost half (14 million), will get their coverage through the welfare programs Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). That is equivalent to adding every resident of Ohio and Nevada to the welfare rolls.
In other words, for half of those Americans who are being promised health reform, they are going to be stunned to find themselves in a welfare office applying for Medicaid. Under the current baselines for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), there will be 76 million individuals served by these programs for at least some part of the year in 2019. If the SFC proposal becomes law, the number on Medicaid/SCHIP will top 90 million. So why do Obamacare supporters want to put 90 million Americans on the welfare rolls? It is cheaper than providing them with real quality health care.Medicaid was originally created to provide access to health care for families on welfare. Medicaid pays providers 20-25 percent less than does the private sector, forcing doctors and hospitals to subsidize Medicaid through lower rates. This deters doctors and hospitals from participating in the program, creating a lack of access that itself is a form of rationing. As Time magazine reported this July: “But there are real questions as to whether the program could handle the strain of that many new clients. Already, it is difficult in some areas to find health-care providers who are willing to accept Medicaid patients.”Even those who are not pushed into welfare will feel the strain on the health care system. The majority of individuals moved into Medicaid will be young and healthy. Keeping them on welfare rolls will shift even more costs to individuals and families buying private health insurance, as doctors and hospitals recoup their losses from Medicare/SCHIP by charging more to the privately insured. In effect, the congressional policy seems to be to expand dependency by discriminating against individuals based on their income.And then there is the effect on states. The CBO estimates that the Finance Committee plan will cost states $33 billion over 10 years. But even that may be a low estimate. Governor Phil Bredesen (D-TN) has warned that the costs for his state alone could be as high as $3 billion. Thanks to strings attached to Obama’s failed stimulus, states already are facing an erosion of their authority to manage their Medicaid programs. The true cost to taxpayers in the states will only become apparent as spending for education, child welfare, public health, and investment in transportation systems and infrastructure are crowded out over time.As Heritage Senior Fellow Dennis Smith reminds us:
In June, President Obama told Senate Democrats, “As we move forward on health care reform, it is not sufficient for us simply to add more people to Medicare or Medicaid.” Unfortunately, that is precisely what Congress is going to do with the Baucus proposal."

Obamacare will bankrupt the states and actually worsen access to health care. What good is having a healthcare plan if you can't find a doctor who accepts it? If this health bill passes the democrats long march to vanquish individual freedom will be nearly complete. We will be reduced to wards of the state and the "American dream" of upward mobility will die, to be replaced by ennui. How ironic that our freedom was gained with assistance from France and it will be lost by adopting their failed economic model.

Part four: abortion

"This Morning Bell is the third in a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions,” Or so President Barack Obama promised to the American people in his health care address before a Joint Session of Congress on September 9th. But then why did the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops send a letter to Congress on October 8th writing: “No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. … No current bill meets this test”?
Who is telling the truth? The President or the Bishops? Last Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked this question during his daily press briefing and answered: “Well, I don’t want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there’s a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn’t going to be changed in these health care bills.” Unsatisfied, the CNS News’ Fred Lucas again pressed on Friday:
The Catholic bishops have repeatedly said that the Hyde amendment would not apply to the health care bill and yesterday in the letter that they sent to Congress they said that if language expressly prohibiting abortion funding is not added to the health care bill, they will vigorously — “vigorously oppose” — that’s a quote — the bill. My question on that, does the President support the bishops on this?Gibbs replied:
My answer isn’t different than it was on Wednesday. There may be a legal interpretation that has been lost here, but there’s a fairly clear federal law prohibiting the federal use of money for abortion. I think it is — again, it’s exceedingly clear in the law.
How to put this politely … it is safe to say that Gibbs’ above statement is less than true. The next time anyone tries to convince you that the White House is telling the truth ask them where exactly in the Federal Code it says this. The truth is…it doesn’t.But what about the Hyde amendment mentioned by the White House reporter? Is the Hyde amendment not the law of the land? No, it is not even a statute. First passed in 1976 by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) as a rider to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the Hyde amendment must be passed again every year as part of the HHS appropriations bill and even then it only applies to current HHS programs. The Hyde amendment would do nothing to stop Obamacare from funding abortions and all the versions of Obamacare passed by Congressional committees so far do exactly that.Conservatives introduced amendments in all five committee markups (three in the House and two in the Senate) that would have specifically prohibited federal funds from being used to cover abortion. None of them passed. Worse, the “compromise” the White House has adopted is an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record according to the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Not only does the Capps amendment allow for federal money to subsidize abortions in private plans and mandate federal funding for abortions in the public option (this according to FactCheck.org), it also requires that at least one insurance plan cover abortion in every geographical region in the country.In 2007, then candidate Barack Obama promised Planned Parenthood: “We’re gonna set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services including reproductive services. … We will also subsidize those who choose to stay in the private insurance market, except, the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care including reproductive care.”
A Rasmussen poll released last month showed that only 13% of Americans want the health-care reform bill to use tax dollars to fund abortions, clearly demonstrating that even most pro-choice believers do not favor taxpayer funded abortions. A Pew Research Center poll two weeks ago showed that support for legalized abortion has dropped to its lowest level in years to 47%, down from 54% last year. Obama can either please NARAL and Planned Parenthood or he can honor the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Americans. He can’t do both."

Don't believe what they say, believe what they do. If the democrats didn't want the public option to cover abortion they would have voted to prohibit it from doing so. The president and Congress are lying to the American people about abortion coverage and coverage for illegal immigrants. Make your voices heard before it's too late.

The Baucus bill

Again from Heritage."This Morning Bell is the third in a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.
The scariest part about yesterday’s Senate Finance Committee vote passing its version of Obamacare, is not what is in their bill (to the extent that it even exists), but that the Finance Committee bill promises to be the high water mark for “bipartisanship” in health care reform.
Now all of the other bills will be merged together behind the closed doors. All the bills are fundamentally flawed and will only get worse as the leaders in the House and Senate have to commit to actual details.
COST — All the proposals carry a hefty price tag. The Finance bill estimates start at $829 billion. Preliminary estimates of the House Tri-Committee bill put the price tag over $1 Trillion and adding another $245 billion to the deficit. Preliminary estimates of the HELP Committee bill would add $598 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. And the outlook for the following ten years looks far far worse.EMPLOYER MANDATE - More spending means more taxes. All the proposals include new taxes on employers. Taxes on employers will ultimately result in lower wages, fewer jobs, and slower economic growth. According to The Heritage Foundation, the mandates, like those in the House bill, could cost businesses up to $49 billion a year, 10.2 million workers will be at risk of slower wage growth and cuts in other benefits, and as many as 9 million low-wage and part-time workers will lose their employer-based health insurance.PUBLIC PLAN - All the proposals include the creation of a new government health plan. The Finance proposal calls it a co-op while the House Tri-Committee bill and the Senate HELP Committee all call it a new public plan. Despite what activists on the left claim, a government run health insurance “option” will not be on a level playing field with other private options. The playing field will be skewed to push millions of Americans out of their current private health insurance and into the government run plan.INDIVIDUAL MANDATE - All the proposals force every Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, some even threatening jail time if they do not comply. Such a mandate is a massive tax increase on individuals and families whose health insurance does not meet the new federally determined standards. This means that Congress will, for the first time in U.S. history, force Americans to buy federally designed packages of health benefits, even if they do not want or need those benefits.MEDICAID EXPANSION - Hidden in all the proposals is a massive expansion of the Medicaid program. The result is millions more Americans would be dependent on this growing entitlement program. This means more costs to taxpayers, less flexibility for the states, and worsening markets for the privately insured.MEDICARE CUTS - All the proposals depend heavily on billions in Medicare cuts to pay for their versions of Obamacare. Traditionally, such cuts rarely come to fruition. Special interests lobby to stop any real cuts from occurring after the bill is passed. And some so-called fraud, waste and abuse cuts, like those to the Medicare Advantage, will put millions of seniors’ benefits at risk.Do high costs, government expansion, huge tax increases, major unfunded expansions in Medicaid and major cuts to Medicare sound like a recipe for success? It’s all downhill from here."
Senator Snowe is a disgrace.Did you catch that part about sending you to jail if you don't purchase an insurance plan that the government deems worthy? Does anyone believe that she won't cave and vote for whatever bill comes out of the Senate? I just can't figure out why this woman identifies as a Republican. She voted for the stimulus bill and is now on record as supporting nationalized healthcare. While she seems to be a lovely woman, she needs to be challenged by a fiscally conservative republican in a primary. When that happens I won't be the least bit surprised if she follows her friend Turncoat Arlen into the warm embrace of the democratic caucus.

signage as stimulus

Some States Forgo Signs on Stimulus
By MICHAEL COOPER
"The Great Depression had its red, white and blue “U.S.A. Work Program” signs and the ubiquitous “We Do Our Part” blue eagle emblems, which can still be seen in the credits of films of the era. This recession has green highway signs telling drivers when construction work was paid for by the stimulus program — but not in Georgia, which just became the latest of at least half a dozen states to forgo the signs as a waste of money.
The signs, which proclaim “Project Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” over the red, white, blue and green logo of the stimulus, cost an average of $1,200 apiece in Georgia, said David Spear, the press secretary for the Georgia Department of Transportation. With the state putting up two signs at each project and 119 construction contracts awarded through September, the cost of the signs was adding up. The sign issue became a lightning rod for critics of the stimulus, and many of them complained to the department about their cost.
“The more we reflected on it, the more we realized they were absolutely right: it’s not the best use of the money,” said Mr. Spear, who added that the decision would save tens of thousands of dollars that could be spent on more construction work.
The use of signs for stimulus projects was strongly encouraged by the Federal Highway Administration but not required.
“We think the signs promote transparency and accountability — so taxpayers can know where their money is being spent and on what,” said Jill Zuckman, the Department of Transportation’s director for public affairs. “But the important thing is that the projects be sound, well run and job creating.”
The sign question has taken on partisan overtones. Some Republicans say the signs are essentially publicly financed advertisements for one of the Obama administration’s signature programs.
“These signs are simply for political self-interest, and it’s high time we stop using stimulus dollars to fund them, and instead use these dollars for their intended purpose of creating economic activity,” Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, a Republican who voted against the stimulus package, said in a statement last month. He tried — and failed — to prohibit the use of the signs.
At the local level, though, the issue seems to be more about red ink than red states. Georgia, which made the decision this month to stop buying the signs, is led by Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican. Texas, another largely Republican state, also banned the signs. But Virginia, which decided from the beginning not to use any of its stimulus money on signs, is led by Gov. Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Florida, whose Republican governor, Charlie Crist, broke ranks with his party to support the stimulus, decided not to use the signs. And New York, a largely Democratic state, stopped requiring them this summer after it was embarrassed by reports that contractors were asking for more than $4,000 for the largest signs."

If only Governor Patrick would follow the example set by these governors. At 2 signs per construction project, that's at least $2,400 wasted on every road project. While that amount of money isn't even a rounding number for Congress, for the average American it's still a lot of money. Since it's our money we should expect that Congress, the president and Governor Patrick spend it wisely.

Our collapsing currency

Dollar loses reserve status to yen & euro
By PAUL THARP
Last Updated: 3:16 AM, October 13, 2009
Posted: 1:44 AM, October 13, 2009
Ben Bernanke's dollar crisis went into a wider mode yesterday as the greenback was shockingly upstaged by the euro and yen, both of which can lay claim to the world title as the currency favored by central banks as their reserve currency.
Over the last three months, banks put 63 percent of their new cash into euros and yen -- not the greenbacks -- a nearly complete reversal of the dollar's onetime dominance for reserves, according to Barclays Capital. The dollar's share of new cash in the central banks was down to 37 percent -- compared with two-thirds a decade ago.
Currently, dollars account for about 62 percent of the currency reserve at central banks -- the lowest on record, said the International Monetary Fund.
Bernanke could go down in economic history as the man who killed the greenback on the operating table.
After printing up trillions of new dollars and new bonds to stimulate the US economy, the Federal Reserve chief is now boxed into a corner battling two separate monsters that could devour the economy -- ravenous inflation on one hand, and a perilous recession on the other.
"He's in a crisis worse than the meltdown ever was," said Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital. "I fear that he could be the Fed chairman who brought down the whole thing."
Investors and central banks are snubbing dollars because the greenback is kept too weak by zero interest rates and a flood of greenbacks in the global economy.
They grumble that they've loaned the US record amounts to cover its mounting debt, but are getting paid back by a currency that's worth 10 percent less in the past three months alone. In a decade, it's down nearly one-third.
Yesterday, the dollar had a mixed performance, falling slightly against the British pound to $1.5801 from $1.5846 Friday, but rising against the euro to $1.4779 from $1.4709 and against the yen to 89.85 yen from 89.78.
Economists believe the market rebellion against the dollar will spread until Bernanke starts raising interest rates from around zero to the high single digits, and pulls back the flood of currency spewed from US printing presses.
"That's a cure, but it's also going to stifle any US economic growth," said Schiff. "The economy is addicted to the cheap interest and liquidity."
Economists warn that a jump in rates will clobber stocks and cripple the already stalled housing market.
"Bernanke's other choice is to keep rates at zero, print even more money and sell more debt, but we'll see triple-digit inflation that could collapse the economy as we know it.
"The stimulus is what's toxic -- we're poisoning ourselves and the global economy with it."

If only the MSM were actually interested in reporting the news and not covering President Obama's behind. Oil closed above 75 dollars a barrel yesterday, and it's not because the world economy is booming again. This administration is bankrupting our great country and the world has taken notice. As the dollar continues to decline and the price of oil continues to increase it is going to be a long, cold, expensive winter for New Englanders'.

What health care reform means for the deficit

The second installment from Heritage:
"This Morning Bell is the second in a five-part week-long series (read Monday’s on out-of-pocket costs) on how Obamacare will affect you.
“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.” President Barack Obama promised this to the American people in his health care address before a Joint Session of Congress on September 9th. Problem is, no one believes him.The Congressional Budget Office has issued reports on the Senate Health Committee bill (HELP), the House Tri-Committee Bill (HR 3200), and the Senate Finance Committee bill (Baucus bill). According to the CBO, the HELP bill would add $600 billion to the deficit in just the first ten years, HR 3200 would add $239 billion to the deficit in just the first ten years, and the Baucus bill claims to reduce the deficit by $81 billion.But nobody believes that the Baucus bill will accomplish what it claims to do. As the Washington Post reported:
The cost difference stems from the fact that the House measure is honest enough to include the full 10-year cost of the so-called “doc fix” — $245 billion to reverse scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to physicians — although not fiscally responsible enough to pay for it. The Senate just patches the problem for one year and pretends that doctors take a 25 percent cut in reimbursements the following year and then stay at that low level forever. No one believes that will happen, so the money is going to have to be scrounged up later or else add more to the deficit.
The Washington Post is right: claims that the Baucus bill reduces the deficit are a complete fraud since there is simply no way Congress is going to cut doctor pay by 25% in one year. But all of these bills are deeply dishonest about their true costs in a more fundamental way.Look at these charts on spending levels in the HR 3200 and the Baucus bill over time. Notice how in both bills the increased revenues (a.k.a. tax hikes) take place immediately but the increased spending doesn’t really ramp up until 2013. In other words, in order to game the CBO scoring system (explained by former CBO Director Donald Marron here), Democrats have packed ten years of taxing, but only six years of spending, into the CBO’s ten-year budgeting window.So what happens to the deficit in those years after the CBO budget window? Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), a member of the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition explains: “Every year, you lose ground. It’s likely after 10 years, we fall off a cliff.”Falling off a cliff. That is the verdict from members of his own party on what Obamacare will actually do to the federal deficit."

The Democrats in Congress don't seem to understand that a plan that relies on raising taxes for ten years and spending for only the last six and a half is not sustainable. We need to focus on what this plan means for year ten and out because once we nationalize health care it isn't going away.

Baucus Bill

From the folks at the Heritage Foundation:
"This Morning Bell is the first in a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.Throughout his campaign, and even in to the first few months in office, President Barack Obama repeatedly promised the American people that his health care plan would reduce their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It has been a while since President Obama made that promise, and any honest look at the health legislation being considered in Congress explains why.The Senate Finance Committee bill written by Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) (the Baucus bill) first drives up the cost of health insurance for all Americans and then forces everyone to buy it or face tax penalties or jail time. While the Baucus bill does cap out-of-pocket costs based on a person’s income, the effect on American families is still staggering. According to the Center for Data Analysis, the Baucus bill would:For individuals making $34,140 (three times the Federal Poverty Level) the Baucus health care proposal could mandate up to $4,097 in annual premiums, a sum which could have been spent on over nine months of food, almost four months of housing or well over a year of utilities.For a family of four making $69,480 (300% above poverty) the Baucus bill mandates annual health insurance premiums of $8,338, which would be worth the equivalent of over ten months of food, four months of housing or almost two years of utilities.For individuals earning $45,520(400% above poverty) Baucus mandates $5,462 for health insurance, or over a year of food, four months of rent or a year and a half of utilities.For families earning $92,640 (400% above poverty) Baucus mandates $11,117 in health premiums, the equivalent of over a year of food, five months of housing or two years of utilities.And those numbers include the subsidies for health insurance in the Baucus bill. To pay for all this new health care spending, plus the massive expansion of Medicaid, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Baucus bill will collect $4 billion in fines from those who do not purchase insurance, $200 billion taxing health insurance companies with generous health plans, and $25 billion in taxes on employers. Not to mention the billions in cuts to Medicare payments to hospitals which will result in significant cost shifting to consumers.PricewaterhouseCoopers has done a study on what all these new taxes and regulations will do to Americans health insurance premiums and the results are not pretty. Instead of reducing the average family’s health insurance premiums by $2,500 per year, as President Obama promised, the Baucus bill would actually raise them by $4,000 more than they would have been without reform.The Baucus bill spends at least $1 trillion, fails to cover all Americans, taxes employers for creating jobs, and inflicts higher out-of-pocket health care costs on all Americans. We can do better."

Our brave new future

"AN 80-year-old grandmother who doctors identified as terminally ill and left to starve to death has recovered after her outraged daughter intervened.
Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after medics ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics and denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron had been placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease the last days of dying patients.
Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been condemned to death on the Liverpool care pathway plan. They argue that while it is suitable for patients who do have only days to live, it is being used more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying."

There is no shortage of such tales. When government is the only provider of health care and is dealing with limited resources an 80 year old is going to be denied care. This is our future if the Obama administration gets its way.

A glimpse of what's to come

"Wendy Williams and her husband liked their health insurance plan. The premium and annual deductibles made sense for them, and a more “gold-plated” plan was not worth the money. Yet Massachusetts’ health care regulators disagreed, and forced the Williams to pay a $1,000 fine if they wished to keep their insurance plan — a plan they prefer to a comparable state-approved alternative.
It wasn’t always this way. When the Massachusetts mandate was first adopted, their plan was just fine. But then the rules changed. The state no longer accepts their insurance plan, even though they are fully insured and are not imposing their health care costs on other taxpayers.
If the federal government adopts an individual mandate, Ms. Williams fears her experience could soon replay itself nationwide. She’s right to fear. Once there is an individual mandate, interest groups will flock to Washington seeking to have their preferred treatment or service incorporated into the requirements for acceptable health care plans. Over time, the requirements will grow, and the cost of health care plans for many Americans will increase as a result. Consequently, many individuals who have health care plans that fully meet their needs will suddenly find themselves “underinsured” — and taxed fined as a result."

The very idea that government will fine individuals that have health insurance and are not a burden on the taxpayers is abhorrent.