Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Not ugly - Revolting! America fights back against extremists and corporate tyranny. Also, some light hearted commentary from your basic average dude.
Not ugly - Revolting! America fights back against extremists and corporate tyranny. Also, some light hearted commentary from your basic average dude.
19 comments:
Here, here!
Nancy Pelosi Was Right
Nancy Pelosi was correct when she said that we have to pass the health-care-reform bill in order to find out what's in it.
Now that the bill has been safely passed and signed into law, the mainstream press is gradually revealing the scores of delightful provisions tucked away in the 2,700 page abomination: job-killing taxes on businesses, innovation-killing taxes on medical products, suffocating regulations on individual freedoms, wealth-sapping taxes on the middle-class, unprecedented intrusions on personal privacy, unconstitutional mandates on individuals, racially discriminatory preferences for favored groups, a Ponzi-scheme-on-steroids financing mechanism, and spending on a galactic, incomprehensible scale.
And that's just the first 600 pages. But somewhere in this heaping pile of manure there just has to be a pony.
And so it begins (from Associated Press today):
"The health care overhaul will cost U.S. companies billions and make them more likely to drop prescription drug coverage for retirees because of a change in how the government subsidizes those benefits.
In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future.
With more than 3,500 companies now getting the tax break as an incentive to keep providing coverage, others are almost certain to announce similar cost increases in the weeks ahead as they sort out the impact of the change.
Figuring out what it will mean for retirees will take longer, but analysts said as many as 2 million could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers, leaving them to enroll in Medicare's program."
That would be the same Medicare that the new bill dramatically cuts funding to.
Good work, Dems!
Peter, I recommend if the bill is 2700 pages then it would be irresponsible of you to make judgments on only the first 600. But, for argument sake, you didn't find even one positive thing in those 600 pages - like covering pre-existing conditions? Not even one?
Dennis, it seems as though your blog is now a big hit amongst the convervatives and tea baggers, what with the explosion of comments from all of these new and different readers. You may just give Rush a run for his money. Congrats!
"...you didn't find even one positive thing in those 600 pages - like covering pre-existing conditions?"
You need to read the fine print: The pre-existing condition exclusion (which only applies to children)prohibits only the refusal to cover treatments for a specific disease, not the exclusion of a family from coverage altogether and applies only in the individual market, and so affects almost no one. More than half the states already have laws allowing parents to keep adult children on their policies - through ages varying from 24 to 31.
The fact that there might be something good is this "reform" is irrelevant to the fact that it is a horrible reform overall that will destroy what's good about the current system, while adding a whole lot of bad, and bankrupting the country in the process.
If you won't listen to me, then listen to what some prominent Liberals have said about it: Howard dean argued in the Washington Post that the bill had become merely a subsidy for insurance companies, and failed completely to control costs. Liberal health care blogger John Walker said' "The Senate bill will fail to stop the rapidly approaching meltdown of our health care system and anyone is a fool for thinking otherwise." Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos called the bill "unconscionable" and said it lacked "any mechanisms to control costs."
Are you sure you won't take me up on that $1000 bet that Obama is going to more than double the national debt? Come on...PLEASE!
And so it begins, 2:
From Andy McCarthy (National Review Online)
The notion that the pain of Obamacare would not really be felt for a few years has always been silly. It won't be fully felt, but he economy is dynamic. Corporations have to plan today for the conditions of tomorrow. More to the point, public corporations with disclosure obligations under the securities laws have to disclose today when developments change their outlook for tomorrow. Hence, AT&T's announcement that Obamacare will force it to take a $1 billion dollar charge — the most alarming (but entirely predictable) bad news in a parade that, the Wall Street Journal's editors note, "includes Deere & Co., $150 million; Caterpillar, $100 million; AK Steel, $31 million; 3M, $90 million; and Valero Energy, up to $20 million."
But here is the most frightful news yet about our new reality: People's Commissar Henry Waxman is now planning to haul the companies before his committee because their disclosures fail to play along with the our Leftist rulers' script that Obamacare "will expand coverage and bring down costs."
As the Journal's editors observe:
Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden. Should these companies have played chicken with the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid this politically inconvenient reality? Democrats don't like what their bill is doing in the real world, so they now want to intimidate CEOs into keeping quiet.
Let me echo that. I worked for many years in the U.S. Attorney's Office in whose backyard was Wall Street. If a company like AT&T failed to make a legally mandated restatement of its financial position while continuing to participate in the capital markets, it would be investigated and the responsible management officials would likely find themselves prosecuted while the SEC, concurrently, went after the company and its officiallys in civil enforcement suits. There are prosecutors and investigators who would salivate at the prospect of doing such a career-making case.
If we are now under a system where disclosure gets you a public whipping and other threats by the Powers That Be while nondisclosure promises the ruinous expenses of defending against criminal investigations and civil enforcement, this is no longer anything but a thugocracy.
I hope we hear from Peter again. I like his writing style.
Andre - I am not going to continue to go back and forth on this topic - clearly you should be writing your own blog. But, you did get my interest when you said this reform destroys what is good with the current system. Please tell us what that is.
What is good with the current system?
Wow. I think I may have seriously misjudged you when I said in an earlier post that I thought you were very intelligent...I'm joking, but seriously, that has to be one of the stupidest questions I have ever been asked (not joking).
I'm so blown away by the sheer scope of such monumental ignorance that I'm almost speechless (I know that makes you smile)...were would one even begin...how about the simple fact that the top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country, or that since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.
Or, from the article linked below:
"...if we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England—a striking variation."
Better yet, why don't you just ask some Canadians?: Since Barack Obama was inaugurated President just over seven months ago, some 17,500 Canadian have come to the U.S. to receive health care. Just since the President’s health care legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives in March, about 12,500 Canadians have come here for health care. During that same period, how many Americans have travelled north to obtain health care in Canada because they couldn’t get it here in the States?
The average wait time for a Canadian to obtain treatment from a specialist after seeing a primary care physician? About 4-1/2 months. In the U.S.? Virtually none.
Want to see a primary care doctor in the U.S.? Pick up the phone and call one. In Canada, get in line behind the five percent of the population waiting to get a primary care physician (about 17 million Canadians).
I mentioned to you once before how I've noticed that often when a Liberal asks a question, they are not really interested in an answer. Assuming that is not the case here and you are sincerely interested in educating yourself on this issue, I would like to refer you to the following article:
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care
David Gratzer
Here's the cut & paste link:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
Here's ten more reasons why the current US Health System, for all it's problems, is still one of the best in the world:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
Thohea:
Hey, you in the peanut gallery...very funny...are you Tweedledum or Tweedledee?
OK dude, I don't blame you for not taking that bet (see, I was right; you are a very intelligent guy)...but I'll give you odds that you can't refuse: If at the end of Obama's 2nd term (God save us!) the national debt isn't more than double what he inherited from Bush, I will make $1000 donation, in your name, to the charity of your choice. If, on the other hand, the national debt has more than doubled, then all you have to do is post a picture of Ronald Reagan, along with a quote from the Gipper (both of my choosing) on the Homepage banner of your blog for one year ( I know, I know, you'd probably rather pay me the $1000 than do that! OK, you just have to post it for one month then...with a short explanation about why it's there).
How can you refuse a wager like that?
Andre - I told you before I don't make bets - money or not. I don't understand what your fascination is with that. I don't write this blog to prove I'm better than anyone. It is just a place to vent my opinions.
Why are you afraid of other people's questions? Is it because the answers might point out flaws in your logic? Like how everything you point out as good with our current system is for people who are already insured.
You keep mentioning future costs and forgetting that we are already paying those costs now in high premiums, deductibles, preexisting conditions and prescription drug costs. Add up how much we will all pay for that in the period you are betting me on and I think you will get a similar or larger number.
Unprovoked insults from Andre. I'd expect nothing less.
Listen Andre, this is Dennis' blog and unless I address you directly, my comments are to him. If you feel the need to argue, insult or belittle (something conservatives do very well) may I suggest any blog on USAToday or any political newsgroup.
Hey Dennis, looking forward to a new topic - and the return of Peter Kirsanow, Victor Davis Hansen or Guy Benson. Surely they're still reading!
"...everything you point out as good with our current system is for people who are already insured."
Not true. Having the best medical technology in the world benefits everyone who enters a hospital, whether they arrive there with insurance or not.
But forget that for now. I want to answer your other question, the one about the wager: I have a theory, which I admit is speculative, that most Liberals (including yourself) know deep down that Obamacare probably is a fiscal disaster for our country, but they don't care. For them, it's worth rolling the dice, because the prize of obtaining their fantasy Socialist Utopia is so enticing to them, that they are willing to make almost any irrationally risky gamble to obtain it. Of course, they cannot admit that, because they realize how irresponsible that would sound to normal rational people,hence the subterfuge. I know that you will never take this wager, no matter what absurd odds I give you, because you know that you will loose. Of course, you will never admit this, but that's OK, because I may be wrong about a lot of things, but you and I both know, deep down inside, that I'm probably right about this.
Anyway, that's my theory....
Thohea,
Lighten up, man...I was joking!
(Jeez...you guys sure are touchy)
You should take some time and look through those 2,700 pages of the new Health Care law: maybe buried somewhere deep inside there are some funds available that you can use to buy a sense of humor. I wouldn't object to my tax payers dollars helping to subsidize that.
I know, don't tell me...that was such a mean thing for me to say, right? IT WAS A JOKE!!!!
This is a publicly posted blog. We are all putting our two cents out there into the open marketplace of ideas, all exercising our right to free speech...we still have that in this country, don't we?
All joking aside, I sincerely apologize if my careless words caused you any distress. I meant no offense.
Andre, I don't make wagers because I think they are stupid. The only reason a person would make one is because they want a big "Ah ha! I told you so" moment. I'm not that type of person and I don't play with those types of people. I prefer facts. But, for the record, I do believe you and your political party are way wrong on many issues. And even if you are right, I'd rather spend taxpayer money on the taxpayers and not on someone "over there".
On a side note - you seem to have a lot of time on your hands - something I don't. Plus, you seem to need to get the last word as if that makes your word correct. I will answer questions you have about a topic on my blog - but I simply don't have time for these endless discussions. So, once again, I will tell you I am moving on from this post - you can have your last word and I'll see you on the next topic.
Believe me,and this might sound weird, but I would be overjoyed to loose that $1000 to you...because that would mean that I was wrong about the cliff that Obama is marching us towards. Conversely, any satisfaction that I might conceivably get from winning such a wager would be more than tempered by the realization of how screwed we all would be...now that I think about it, you are right; that would be a really dumb wager: If I win, I lose (because we all lose) and if I lose ( well, I would lose, some worthy charity would get $1000, and the country wouldn't be so screwed)...so it would be in my best interest if I lost? Oy veh....my head hurts.
Since you were gracious enough to give me the last word, it seems only polite that I should use it against myself...
Post a Comment