President Obama used those words not that long ago. The reason he dropped all the hopey changiness.
“Is the U.S. Government Bankrupt?” which was asked by Pete Morin in his article published today in American Thinker.
Here are some exerpts:
Before we continue to debate the merits of any Obama health care plan, we need to consider a few important facts.
“By any rational means, we must consider the present condition of our Government’s financial situation. An honest look at those finances would have a prudent person conclude that our government is tacitly bankrupt. Our unfunded liabilities far exceed our assets. Adding up all unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Government sponsored pension funds gives us a figure slightly in excess of $100 TRILLION dollars. That’s TRILLION with a ‘T’. The Federal budget deficit for fiscal 2009 will be approximately $1.84 TRILLION. That’s TRILLION with a ‘T’. Over the next ten years the projected deficit will be $9 TRILLION +. That’s TRILLION with a ‘T’. Of course, this projected deficit comes from the Congressional Budget Office and has to be considered a conservative estimate. In 1966 the feds estimated that the cost of the Medicare program by 1990 would be approximately $9 billion dollars/year; the actual cost was $67 billion dollars/year.
Yup. The U.S. government already has 100 trillion dollars worth of bills that it has no ability to pay. I'm sure the president must be thinking that another trillion to nationalize health care is a drop in the bucket. And the benefit to the democratic party of making people dependent on the government is well worth the measley 1% increase in our unfunded liabilities.
The problem for the American taxpayer is that our government's current solution to our deficit problem of printing money to buy our own debt is not sustainable. The dollar is already dropping in value in relation to other currencies. There are only two solutions: to rescind our promises to social security, medicare etc. or the largest tax increase the world has ever seen. While I'm not a gambler, I'd put all my money on the tax increase. Either way I lose.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Rude but right
Rep. Wilson of South Carolina is being pilloried for his lack of decorum during a presidential address to Congress. His sin? He called the president of the United States a liar. What's being lost in all the hoopla is that he was absolutely correct to do so. I hope he goes on as many national news programs and says as much. President Obama was lying to the American people when he told them that it is false that illegal aliens will be covered under Obamacare. How do I know? Because democrats killed a provision that would have made it possible to screen illegal aliens out of the program. They say in the legislation that illegals won't be covered, but they refuse to enact safeguards to enforce that provision. It's akin to having the drinking age be 21 but making it illegal to check id's. You can bet that under that regime many under age drinkers would be strolling into packies and bars all across the nation without fear of being denied service.
What Rep. Wilson did is to say "the emperor has no clothes". In my estimation the president is delusional at best if he believes what he said last night. At worst, he is a demogogue, that will say whatever is necessary to get his bill passed. The American people deserve more from their president.
What Rep. Wilson did is to say "the emperor has no clothes". In my estimation the president is delusional at best if he believes what he said last night. At worst, he is a demogogue, that will say whatever is necessary to get his bill passed. The American people deserve more from their president.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Our future under Obamacare
There has been much hand-ringing and tut-tutting about Sarah Palin's use of the term "death panels". Here is a story from Britain, which is a model that democrats' think worth emulating.
From the Daily Mail:
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.
Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.
Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.
She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.
Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.
Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.
In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.
The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not 'standard practice'.
James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.
A trust spokesman said: 'Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.'
Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.
Being born two days earlier than the bureaucrats deemed worthy of treatment cost that child a chance at life. It is inevitable that health care rationing will lead to the same results when it is instituted here.
From the Daily Mail:
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.
Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.
Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.
She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.
Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.
Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.
In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.
The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not 'standard practice'.
James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.
A trust spokesman said: 'Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.'
Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.
Being born two days earlier than the bureaucrats deemed worthy of treatment cost that child a chance at life. It is inevitable that health care rationing will lead to the same results when it is instituted here.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
It really pays to be a bureaucrat

I always thought that government workers received such great benefits like health care, vacation time and pensions because the pay was lousy. Whoever sold that fable to the public deserves a promotion. The truth is they make much more than the taxpayers of this country that pay their salaries and they never have to be worried about being laid off. If this isn't a big enough kick in the teeth, President Obama plans on adding 600,000+ in the coming years to the federal government. With the national unemployment rate up to 9.7%, a 26 year high, it seems the only "company" hiring is the government. An economy that depends on an ever expanding government for growth is unsustainable. Vice President Biden remarked the other day that the stimulus is working better than expected. Do you believe him? Someday soon the debt being run up by this administration will come due. The only way to pay the bills will be to institute a value added tax.
Senator?
The sad thing is that with his support of single-payer health care, cap and trade and card check he appeals to the far left base of democrats needed to win the primary.
Is it too much to ask that our next senator look out for the taxpayers of this state and not the special interests?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Following the Piper
Winston Churchill quipped along the lines that if at 18 you're not a socialist you have no heart, if not a conservative at 30 you have no brains. Somehow I managed to get through college without extolling the virtues of "Das Kapital" and saying stupid things along the lines of "true communism hasn't been tried yet". Which brings me to a vigil thrown by the folks of moveon.org and the political musings of one paticipant. From the Newburyport Daily News "Bliss Parsons will leave on Sunday for Mount Holyoke College but felt it was important to be out helping to shape what will affect her generation in the coming years.
"I follow Obama," Parsons said as she stood with her mother, Christine Booth of Newbury. "I think health care is a necessity for all, and it's a right. It's really going to affect my generation, and I want to be out here making sure no one has to pay for it.""
A tutorial for Ms. Parsons, there is no such thing as free health care. It will be paid for by massive tax increases and draconian rationing. Well, maybe, Rep. Yarmuth admitted he has no idea how it will be paid for.
Here's hoping old Winston was on to something. Otherwise I fear for the future of this country.
"I follow Obama," Parsons said as she stood with her mother, Christine Booth of Newbury. "I think health care is a necessity for all, and it's a right. It's really going to affect my generation, and I want to be out here making sure no one has to pay for it.""
A tutorial for Ms. Parsons, there is no such thing as free health care. It will be paid for by massive tax increases and draconian rationing. Well, maybe, Rep. Yarmuth admitted he has no idea how it will be paid for.
Here's hoping old Winston was on to something. Otherwise I fear for the future of this country.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The question I didn't get to ask
Even though I believe that Rep. Tierney should meet with his constituents in an open forum I signed up to participate in his tele-town hall. So, at 6pm I waited by the phone, but it didn't ring. Finally at 6:07 a call from the (202) area code but when I picked it up my ear was met with the shrill tone of a buisy signal. To their credit, they called back 20 minutes later and this time I heard a dial tone. This morning the woman I spoke to in Tierney's Peabody office seemed to be under the impression that my experience was an abberation. She took my information down and promised to get back to me with an answer. The question I really want answered by the good congressman follows:
The MA Medical Society released a study in Nov. 2008 that finds 83% of doctors in MA practice defensive medicine. They broke it down by procedure: 22% X-rays, 28% CT scans, 27% MRI's, 24% ultrasounds, 28% specialist referrals, 18% laboratory tests and 13% of hopsital admissions. That is a lot of medical care being performed not because the doctor thinks its medically necessary, but because they are afraid of lawsuits. Nationwide doctors spend 26 billion dollars a year on medical liability premiums. Which is an increase of 2,000% from 1975 and continues to increase at a 12% clip. The study finds that over 100 billion a year or 12% of total medical costs are spent on defensive medicine. That's over 1 trillion dollars wasted over a 10 year time frame. How is it that in a bill that purports to rein in costs, tort reform is not addressed?
The MA Medical Society released a study in Nov. 2008 that finds 83% of doctors in MA practice defensive medicine. They broke it down by procedure: 22% X-rays, 28% CT scans, 27% MRI's, 24% ultrasounds, 28% specialist referrals, 18% laboratory tests and 13% of hopsital admissions. That is a lot of medical care being performed not because the doctor thinks its medically necessary, but because they are afraid of lawsuits. Nationwide doctors spend 26 billion dollars a year on medical liability premiums. Which is an increase of 2,000% from 1975 and continues to increase at a 12% clip. The study finds that over 100 billion a year or 12% of total medical costs are spent on defensive medicine. That's over 1 trillion dollars wasted over a 10 year time frame. How is it that in a bill that purports to rein in costs, tort reform is not addressed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)