"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.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Hatch amendment
Senator Hatch from Utah proposed to amend the health legislation making its way through the finance committee to protect Americans access to health care plans they enjoy. Remember, President Obama has repeatedly stated that if you like your current health care you have nothing to worry about. The text of the amendment: "The purpose of this amendment is simple. If the secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that more than 1 million Americans would lose the current coverage of their choice because of this bill, then this bill would not go into effect.
It seems like a very, very simple but perfect amendment for those of us who have integrity. This amendment is simply trying to safeguard President Obama's pledge to the American people, you'll get -- that you will get to keep what you have.".
Democrats defeated the amendment. It seems clear that the democrats know that this legislation is going to cause millions of Americans to lose their private insurance and be forced on the government plan. The Democrats who voted to strip you of your health care coverage and subject you to rationed care are: Rockefeller (WV), Conrad (ND), Bingaman (NM), Kerry (MA), Lincoln (AR), Wyden (OR), Schumer (NY), Stabenow (MI), Cantwell (WA), Nelson (FL), Menendez (NJ), and Carper (DE). The democrats are looking out for their interests of ever bigger government, not yours. If you end up waiting months to see a doctor as they do in Canada and Britain that doesn't trouble them in the least. They have already voted to ensure that they will never be subject to the government plan.
It seems like a very, very simple but perfect amendment for those of us who have integrity. This amendment is simply trying to safeguard President Obama's pledge to the American people, you'll get -- that you will get to keep what you have.".
Democrats defeated the amendment. It seems clear that the democrats know that this legislation is going to cause millions of Americans to lose their private insurance and be forced on the government plan. The Democrats who voted to strip you of your health care coverage and subject you to rationed care are: Rockefeller (WV), Conrad (ND), Bingaman (NM), Kerry (MA), Lincoln (AR), Wyden (OR), Schumer (NY), Stabenow (MI), Cantwell (WA), Nelson (FL), Menendez (NJ), and Carper (DE). The democrats are looking out for their interests of ever bigger government, not yours. If you end up waiting months to see a doctor as they do in Canada and Britain that doesn't trouble them in the least. They have already voted to ensure that they will never be subject to the government plan.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Mandate = Tax increase
President Obama should actually read the legislation before he goes on his next t.v. blitz to promote it. The legislation is very explicit that the individual is mandated to purchase health insurance or they will pay an excise tax to the federal government. From Politico:
"In the most contentious exchange of President Barack Obama’s marathon of five Sunday shows, he said it is “not true” that a requirement for individuals to get health insurance under a key reform plan now being debated amounts to a tax increase.
But he could look it up — in the bill.
Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”
And the rest of the bill is clear that the Finance Committee does, in fact, consider it a tax: “The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.”
The bill requires every American, with few exceptions, to carry health insurance. To enforce this individual mandate, the Senate Finance Committee created the excise tax as a penalty for people who don’t have insurance – and it can run as much as $3,800 a year per family.". Seems like a very large tax increase on average Americans to me.
The president should level with the people about the costs of nationalizing health care. Including that when this legislation costs much more than advertised, the first things to go will be the subsidies. President Obama will tell you not to worry about the individual mandate because the government is going to pay for your healthcare. The truth is that when the dust clears, many Americans will be staring at the prospect of being forced to buy health insurance they can't afford or paying a fine, up to $3,800, to the government and still not have medical coverage.
Either the president is clueless about what is in the bill or he is lying through his teeth. Neither prospect inspires confidence in his leadership.
"In the most contentious exchange of President Barack Obama’s marathon of five Sunday shows, he said it is “not true” that a requirement for individuals to get health insurance under a key reform plan now being debated amounts to a tax increase.
But he could look it up — in the bill.
Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”
And the rest of the bill is clear that the Finance Committee does, in fact, consider it a tax: “The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.”
The bill requires every American, with few exceptions, to carry health insurance. To enforce this individual mandate, the Senate Finance Committee created the excise tax as a penalty for people who don’t have insurance – and it can run as much as $3,800 a year per family.". Seems like a very large tax increase on average Americans to me.
The president should level with the people about the costs of nationalizing health care. Including that when this legislation costs much more than advertised, the first things to go will be the subsidies. President Obama will tell you not to worry about the individual mandate because the government is going to pay for your healthcare. The truth is that when the dust clears, many Americans will be staring at the prospect of being forced to buy health insurance they can't afford or paying a fine, up to $3,800, to the government and still not have medical coverage.
Either the president is clueless about what is in the bill or he is lying through his teeth. Neither prospect inspires confidence in his leadership.
Friday, September 18, 2009
A new state fee
From the Herald "State Republicans are howling mad over yet another tax hike being slipped through the Legislature that would slap an annual $3 state surcharge on municipal licensing fees canine owners pay for their pet pooches."
Newburyport charges $10 for a dog license, so this surcharge represents a 30% increase . Our legislators just hit us with a 25% increase in the sales tax and now this. Maybe they should try to cut the budget instead of hitting the taxpayers with ever higher taxes.
One legislator was caught buying his booze in tax free NH. Many may follow his lead and simply stop getting their dogs' licensed. Three dollars isn't a lot of money, but with government taking an ever larger bite out of our paychecks, some people may say enough is enough. I know I don't have a money tree in the backyard and I'm sure none of my friends do either.
Newburyport charges $10 for a dog license, so this surcharge represents a 30% increase . Our legislators just hit us with a 25% increase in the sales tax and now this. Maybe they should try to cut the budget instead of hitting the taxpayers with ever higher taxes.
One legislator was caught buying his booze in tax free NH. Many may follow his lead and simply stop getting their dogs' licensed. Three dollars isn't a lot of money, but with government taking an ever larger bite out of our paychecks, some people may say enough is enough. I know I don't have a money tree in the backyard and I'm sure none of my friends do either.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The shameless seven
The U.S. Senate voted 83-7 in a rare demonstration of bi-partisan resolve to keep ACORN from receiving federal funds through HUD. The nation owes a debt of gratitude to James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles for their gutsy reporting. ACORN has a lot of friends in high places. Heck, seven Senators still voted to give them funding after the revelations of criminality. They are: Gillibrand (D-NY), Casey (D-PA), Durbin (D-IL), Burris (D-IL), Sanders (I-VT), Leahy (D-VT) and Whitehouse (D-RI). The voters of Vermont and Illinios should be especially proud that both their senators stood up for an organization that was caught on four and counting occasions giving advice on setting up a brothel for underage girls from Central America.
Those that follow ACORN know that they don't limit themselves to giving tax and housing advice to prostitutes and their pimps. They also dabble in vote fraud. The organization is being investigated in a dozen states for their voter registration practices. Even with these investigations the U.S. Census bureau was going to let them help with next years census. I guess they figure if they can create democrat voters out of thin air, they will be an asset in inflating the number of Americans. Two twentysomethings with an outlandish story and a hidden camera put a stop to that however.
While ABC news anchor Charlie Gibson believes this story is best left to cable television and the NY Times doesn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. At least according to this internal email from last fall: "The Times reporter who wrote that story, Stephanie Strom wanted to pursue the story further, but she was discouraged by her superiors at the Times and gave up after blistering phone conversation with then-candidate Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Strom revealed in an email: “I’m calling a halt to my efforts. I just had two unpleasant calls with the Obama campaign, wherein the spokesman was screaming and yelling and cursing me, calling me a rightwing nut and a conspiracy theorist and everything else.” Explaining why she wanted to pursue the story further in another email Strom wrote:
The real story to all this is how these myriad entities allow them to shuffle money around so much that no one really knows what’s getting spent on what — and for the charities like the housing orgs, that’s a problem. Charitable money cannot be spent on political activities. It’s a big no-no that can cost charitable organizations their exemptions." You can't get friends much higher than President of the United States.
This is an organization that has received at least 53 million dollars from the federal government since 1993 and is set to receive many times that from the stimulus bill. Barney Frank is a huge supporter of ACORN and it will be interesting to see if the House strips ACORN of taxpayer funds. If and when the vote happens, I'll post an update with the names of those who want your money to support criminals.
Update: The House voted 345-75 to strip ACORN of all federal funds. Names of the 75, all democrats below:
Baldwin, Becerra,Brady (PA),Brown, Corrine, Butterfield, Capuano, Carson (IN), Castor (FL)Cleaver, Clyburn, Crowley, Cummings, Davis (IL), DeGette, Delahunt, Doyle, Edwards (MD)Ellison, Engel, Fattah, Filner, Fudge, Green (Al), Grijalva, Hinchey, Hirono, Holt, Honda, Jackson (IL),Jackson-Lee (TX),Johnson, E. B., Kilpatrick (MI)Kucinich, Larsen (WA), Lee (CA), Lewis (GA), Lynch, Markey (MA)McCollum, McDermott, McGovern, Meeks (NY), Mollohan, Moore (WI), Moran (VA), Nadler (NY), Neal (MA), Olver, Pallone, Pascrell, Payne, Polis (CO), Price (NC), Rahall, Rangel, Roybal-Allard, Rush, Sánchez, Linda, T.Schakowsky, Scott (GA), Scott (VA), Serrano, Sherman, Sires, Slaughter, Stark, Thompson (MS), Towns, Tsongas, Velázquez, Waters, Watson,Waxman, Wexler,Woolsey
Sadly, most of the Massachusetts delegation chose to continue funding ACORN. They are: Capuano, Delahunt, Lynch, Markey, McGovern, Neal, Olver, Tsongas. If enabling child prostitution isn't enough for these Reps to pull the plug on ACORN what is?
Those that follow ACORN know that they don't limit themselves to giving tax and housing advice to prostitutes and their pimps. They also dabble in vote fraud. The organization is being investigated in a dozen states for their voter registration practices. Even with these investigations the U.S. Census bureau was going to let them help with next years census. I guess they figure if they can create democrat voters out of thin air, they will be an asset in inflating the number of Americans. Two twentysomethings with an outlandish story and a hidden camera put a stop to that however.
While ABC news anchor Charlie Gibson believes this story is best left to cable television and the NY Times doesn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. At least according to this internal email from last fall: "The Times reporter who wrote that story, Stephanie Strom wanted to pursue the story further, but she was discouraged by her superiors at the Times and gave up after blistering phone conversation with then-candidate Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Strom revealed in an email: “I’m calling a halt to my efforts. I just had two unpleasant calls with the Obama campaign, wherein the spokesman was screaming and yelling and cursing me, calling me a rightwing nut and a conspiracy theorist and everything else.” Explaining why she wanted to pursue the story further in another email Strom wrote:
The real story to all this is how these myriad entities allow them to shuffle money around so much that no one really knows what’s getting spent on what — and for the charities like the housing orgs, that’s a problem. Charitable money cannot be spent on political activities. It’s a big no-no that can cost charitable organizations their exemptions." You can't get friends much higher than President of the United States.
This is an organization that has received at least 53 million dollars from the federal government since 1993 and is set to receive many times that from the stimulus bill. Barney Frank is a huge supporter of ACORN and it will be interesting to see if the House strips ACORN of taxpayer funds. If and when the vote happens, I'll post an update with the names of those who want your money to support criminals.
Update: The House voted 345-75 to strip ACORN of all federal funds. Names of the 75, all democrats below:
Baldwin, Becerra,Brady (PA),Brown, Corrine, Butterfield, Capuano, Carson (IN), Castor (FL)Cleaver, Clyburn, Crowley, Cummings, Davis (IL), DeGette, Delahunt, Doyle, Edwards (MD)Ellison, Engel, Fattah, Filner, Fudge, Green (Al), Grijalva, Hinchey, Hirono, Holt, Honda, Jackson (IL),Jackson-Lee (TX),Johnson, E. B., Kilpatrick (MI)Kucinich, Larsen (WA), Lee (CA), Lewis (GA), Lynch, Markey (MA)McCollum, McDermott, McGovern, Meeks (NY), Mollohan, Moore (WI), Moran (VA), Nadler (NY), Neal (MA), Olver, Pallone, Pascrell, Payne, Polis (CO), Price (NC), Rahall, Rangel, Roybal-Allard, Rush, Sánchez, Linda, T.Schakowsky, Scott (GA), Scott (VA), Serrano, Sherman, Sires, Slaughter, Stark, Thompson (MS), Towns, Tsongas, Velázquez, Waters, Watson,Waxman, Wexler,Woolsey
Sadly, most of the Massachusetts delegation chose to continue funding ACORN. They are: Capuano, Delahunt, Lynch, Markey, McGovern, Neal, Olver, Tsongas. If enabling child prostitution isn't enough for these Reps to pull the plug on ACORN what is?
Monday, September 14, 2009
9/12 rallies
I'm not sure if this picture was taken at the rally in D.C. or one of the hundreds held around the country on Saturday. Wherever it was we need more of them. Who says Republicans can't be the party of NO?
Here's what this administration and its allies in Congress are trying to do:
Nationalize health care
Impose a massive tax on energy
Eliminate the secret ballot in union elections
Amnesty for illegal immigrants
If Republicans can't stand up and say NO to this massive grab for power what good are we? We need to convince the public that what President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are attempting to do will lead to disaster. Only then will they listen to Republican ideas to move the country forward.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Hoisted on his on petard
The President at his health care rally in Minnesota yesterday said "If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out.". Well, Mr. President I'm calling you out. This from a White House press release: “Undocumented immigrants would be able to buy insurance in the non-exchange private market, just as they do today. That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps.” So the White House has admitted that Rep. Wilson was correct that without a mechanism to verify immigration status that illegal immigrants would be covered under the HR 3200. Point to Rep. Wilson. Which means that the President was not telling the truth to the American people during his address.
In answering the question about illegals the Obama administration opened up another can of worms. Remeber the President's claims that if you were happy with your insurance you could keep it? Not true. "That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps.”. That business about the market shrinking means that health care plans that Americans have and are happy with will be forced out of business by the government. Which means that some Americans will lose the health plans they currently enjoy due to a dictat from the government. How many Americans lose their plans depends on the whims of HHS Secretary Sebelius, it could be millions. Rember it's in the democrats political interest to get as many people on the government option as possible. The more people dependent on the government the better their chances of permanent rule.
The White House also neglects to mention their promises to the immigration pressure groups. The White House has promised a vote on Amnesty after health care, cap and trade and card check are passed. So that promise to keep illegals from getting government provided health care is just posturing. It is their postion that by the time national health care goes into effect they will no longer be illegal and therefore elligible for the "public option".
President Obama is aiming for nothing short of an intrusive and omnipotent Federal government on the European model. Once our freedoms are lost they will be impossible to regain. The American dream will die in a hell of confiscatory taxes, an octopus of regulations and dependency.
In answering the question about illegals the Obama administration opened up another can of worms. Remeber the President's claims that if you were happy with your insurance you could keep it? Not true. "That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps.”. That business about the market shrinking means that health care plans that Americans have and are happy with will be forced out of business by the government. Which means that some Americans will lose the health plans they currently enjoy due to a dictat from the government. How many Americans lose their plans depends on the whims of HHS Secretary Sebelius, it could be millions. Rember it's in the democrats political interest to get as many people on the government option as possible. The more people dependent on the government the better their chances of permanent rule.
The White House also neglects to mention their promises to the immigration pressure groups. The White House has promised a vote on Amnesty after health care, cap and trade and card check are passed. So that promise to keep illegals from getting government provided health care is just posturing. It is their postion that by the time national health care goes into effect they will no longer be illegal and therefore elligible for the "public option".
President Obama is aiming for nothing short of an intrusive and omnipotent Federal government on the European model. Once our freedoms are lost they will be impossible to regain. The American dream will die in a hell of confiscatory taxes, an octopus of regulations and dependency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
