Tag Archives: Obamacare

News

Democrat explains why you don’t deserve to keep all the money you earn

Leave a comment

(H/T Reason to Stand)

Here’s an article that my good friend Tom found.

Excerpt:

A lot of reaction Wednesday morning to Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky’s interview with Don Wade and Roma.

Schakowsky said that Americans don’t deserve to keep all of their money because we need taxes to support our society.

“I’ll put it this way. You don’t deserve to keep all of it and it’s not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together. And there are many things that we decide to do together like have our national security. Like have police and fire. What about the people that work at the National Institute of Health who are looking for a cure for cancer,” Schakowsky said.

Schakowsky also says one reason the 2009 stimulus bill did not succeed was because it was not large enough.

Schakowsky also admitted there are questions about the Obama administration’s connection to the now bankrupt Solyndra solar panel company.

The administration approved nearly $528 million in federal loans to the company, before Solyndra filed for bankruptcy.

Let’s find out more about what Democrats like Jan believe.

She’s a socialist

Here is Illinois socialist Jan Schakowsky at a town hall meeting.

Ed Morrissey explains what’s in the clip:

At least Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) gives it a few tries.  First she argued “If we can build national highways,” but Adam Sharp noted that the Constitution does include the authority to build interstate “post roads.”  Next, Schakowsky says enacting civil-rights legislation creates some sort of odd precedent, even though those acts existed to enforce the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments of the Constitution.  Schakowsky gives it one last try on Medicare and Social Security, even though the former is voluntary and the latter is an explicit government program (albeit also of dubious Constitutional authority).  There exists no Constitutional reference to force Americans to buy a private product, and Schakowsky winds up walking away…

You’ll remember that this is the same woman who thinks that Obama’s public option would lead to single-payer health care.

If she loves communism so much, why doesn’t she just move to North Korea right now where she can personally imprison, torture and execute people who want to keep the money they earn? Just jump to the end game, Jan – don’t beat around the bush. Isn’t abortion enough for you?

News

NHS makes patients wait unnecessarily in order to avoid “raising expectations”

Leave a comment

From the UK Telegraph. (H/T Secondhand Smoke)

Excerpt:

NHS managers are making patients wait longer than necessary for operations, with one claiming that treating them quickly “raises expectations” At least 10 primary care trusts (PCTs) have told hospitals to increase the length of time before they see patients in order to save money, an investigation by The Daily Telegraph has found. In some areas, patients endured delays of 12 or 15 weeks after GPs decided they needed surgery, even though hospitals could have seen them sooner. The maximum permitted time between referral and treatment is 18 weeks. In one case a manager said the policy keeps patients in line as “short waiting times also create more demand for treatment due to the expectations this raises”. It comes after an NHS watchdog suggested that if patients are forced to wait a long time, they will remove themselves from lists “either by dying or by paying for their own treatment”.

Wesley J. Smith writes:

And the lessons are? Patients are people, not objects to be maneuvered to meet check list goals.  Centralized control has no place in health care.  Bureaucrats are not patient friendly.  What a disgrace.

Indeed. The best way to run a health care system is to let consumers hold onto their own money. When you keep your own money, you make the decisions. Not some health insurance company nor some government bureaucrat.

Related posts

News

Do the Boehner and Reid plans address the concerns of credit agencies?

6 Comments
Obama Budget Deficit 2011
Obama Budget Deficit 2011

The Heritage Foundation assesses the new Boehner and Reid plans: can they stop us from getting our credit downgraded?

First, the credit agencies:

The second and even more crucial issue is whether Congress will take necessary action beyond the next year to bring our debt under control over the medium and long-term.  This is where the rating agencies really voice their strong concern. Again, Standard & Poor’s:

Congress and the Administration might also settle for a smaller increase in the debt ceiling, or they might agree to a plan that, while avoiding a near-term default, might not, in our view, materially improve our base case expectation for the future path of the net general government debt-to-GDP ratio.”

Moody’s response is similar:

The outlook assigned at that time to the government bond rating would very likely be changed to negative at the conclusion of the review unless substantial and credible agreement is achieved on a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction. To retain a stable outlook, such an agreement should include a deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratios of federal government debt to GDP and debt to revenue beginning within the next few years.

What the rating agencies are saying is that Congress and the President must pass legislation that immediately begins to rein in deficits and bring our debt down to more acceptable levels, and either keeps it there or continues to drive it down further.

Right now, there are two plans on the table, because the Senate rejected Boehner’s “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan. Do either of these plans address the concerns of the two credit agencies?

The Boehner proposal would cut $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending.  There is no assurance that these cuts will occur, but let’s assume they do.  Let’s even be generous and assume that they are – in the words of S&P– “enacted and maintained throughout the decade.”  This would cut debt held by the public from its projected $24.9 trillion in 2021 to $23.7 trillion, and when measured against the economy from 104% to 99.4%.  Certainly, this is an improvement, but it is hardly declining from today’s levels, nor would these cuts fundamentally restructure entitlements – the real driver of our deficits in the future.

Step two in the Boehner proposal would reduce deficits by an additional $1.8 trillion over ten years.  Even assuming these cuts all happen, and even assuming they were all spending cuts – a broad assumption given the President’s rhetoric surrounding tax hikes on the wealthy – this would bring publicly held debt down to 92% of GDP. Better, but not that much.  Even throwing in interest savings from deficit reduction would bring this down to 88%.  Again, not much improvement and far worse than today’s debt ratio.

The Reid proposal doesn’t move the ball forward enough either.  At best it falls somewhat short of Boehner’s $3 trillion by $800 billion ($1.2 trillion in discretionary and some confusing savings to be had from winding down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan of $1.0 trillion.)

Neither of this week’s dueling debt ceiling proposals would pass the test from Moody’s or Standard and Poor’s for a credible, firm and actionable plan that would turn the tide of our deficits to put our debt on a manageable track. And if that holds true, then a downgrade by the rating agencies could occur smack in the very election year the President is trying to scoot through.

[…]The fact is, the only plan that could likely pass muster with Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s is House passed, Cut, Cap and Balance.  Why?  They tackle spending with firm caps that are enforceable, and before the end of the decade bring spending down to 19.9% of GDP and keep it there.

My guess right now is that Obama is going to sign the Boehner plan into law. He has no choice, Boehner pwnd him in the deal negotiations. Obama is going to have to yield, or all the blame for the default will go on HIS shoulders. As much as I like the new Boehner plan, it doesn’t look like it’s going to stop our debt rating from being downgraded. We needed to pass the Cut, Cap and Balance plan, but the Democrats rejected it. Think of that when interest rates shoot up. A debt downgrade is going to cause WIDE-RANGING repercussions in the lives of ordinary working families.