Caveat Emptor: Rethink Obama's Health-Care Bill

Are you sold on the Obama Health-Care bill? If so, think about a serious issue that hasn't been completely explained to Congress or the American public.

In 2006 the Democrats took over control of Congress and immediately they restored the pay-go as a rule for both houses. (In basic jargon, this meant that if a new entitlement program were enacted, in order to pay for it some other program had to be cut....somewhere). This year, Obama begged the legislature to make it a law, envisioning that he would have more power to enforce it. What is not reported to the public is the fact that it could do the opposite. This bill states that if Congress has spent more on new entitlements (or has given more tax cuts) than it has saved, the Prez. can roll back or hide the excess.

So why is that such a bad idea? The Congressional Budget Office sent out an alarming memo that said that the bill as introduced might allow spending to increase by an alarming amount ( let's call it an astronomical amount). The memo further stated, "that rule would allow Congress to enact legislation that would increase deficits by an amount in the vicinity of $3 trillion over the 2010-2019 period with a sequestration."

Still confused? The bill would exempt from pay-go all of the spending in Medicare physician payments and all of the revenue dependent on estate and gift taxes, the alternative minimum tax for individuals and the administration's plan to continue the middle-income tax cuts of 2001-2003.

This pay-go program doesn't have a multi-year cap on discretionary spending and could result in a budget with a 40% loophole of staggering proportions that doesn't have to be paid for.

Mr. Obama promised transparency, he promised a "revenue neutral" budget, he promised accountability. What many are seeing is a devil in the details that might just up and bite us on the butt. Caveat emptor.

Something's Rotten (Part II)

In part one of this story, I related that the health industry is surprisingly vowing to lower cost for we the people on our premiums. I smell something rotten and it's the source...the industry itself. Matt Wion, a fellow blogger, summed it up succinctly when he said it was a case of "Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts". He is absolutely correct and here's why:

Governments and businesses have put into play a policy known as "Marketplace of Ideas". In it's simple version, an industry for example, simply throws out an idea into the media. Usually they will sugar coat or play on God, Guns, Gays in order to gauge the public reaction to the concept. They twist wording, use confusing math, or sugar-coat a story to see if the public will run with it.

Political parties along with their think tanks will use wedge issues such as gay marriage, abortion, or estate taxes. They know that the individual issue affects a very small number of citizens, but with the help of demagogues they flame the controversy as high as it can get to create vivid excitement.

In the case of the 6 large insurance corps, they threw out large numbers, talked about generating "perhaps" 2 trillion $$$ over a decade. But from where? From the savings of 1.5 of their gross earnings. They fed the idea to the Prez and he's falling for it like a missile over Baghdad. The White House using spin doctors, threw it to the press and voila...there you have it: Big Business will save their greedy profits, they'll not fall prey to a national health plan, and they will look like Batman coming to save Gotham.
More befuddlement comes with fuzzy math. The industry says it can save the policyholders up to $2,500 a year in premiums to boot. Sounds good, doesn't it?

First, they vowed they would "try"...nothing concrete (off that hook);
Second, they didn't say anything about how they arrived at the math (off that hook, too);
Third, the little burr under the saddle, how can 1.5% of their profits equal $2 trillion over 10 years? It can't! Just look at the current GDP compared to the last 5 years and you will note a slow growth for the whole country, but they want you to believe they alone can achieve it;
Fourth, they mentioned nothing about inflation (if they can't reach their lofty goal they have a built in scapegoat); and,
Fifth, they conveniently omitted how they would generate the monies: lower payout to Drs./hospitals/increase in deductibles, etc.

The press needing news w/out investigating, buys the whole concept lock, stock and barrel.

See what a great tool the "marketplace of ideas" is?
Perhaps you will remember when Dubya wanted to dismantle S. Security. He threw the idea into the marketplace, but in that instance the press did their homework and riled back. This time there isn't a whimper.

Hey! Let's Beat Up on the Kids

Check out State Budget Shortfalls on K-12 Education Spending and Job Loss. Geez, wouldn't you know it, right off the bat the destruction will be around 9% loss on common ed. spending.
Ok, let's use really big numbers here for emphasis: $54,000,000,000. Sadly the stimulus package won't help shortfalls in local spending.
This country ought to be ashamed of it lack of effort or concern for it's citizenry and it's future. Every S.O.B. elected leader has h/her hand out for the stimulus money, but as usual the kids get the punch in the mouth both now and, oh, yes, later when the bill comes due to pay for this mess over Wall Street.
Of course the teachers get kicked in the ass over this crap too, yet they will be expected to shoulder the load and suffer from the "come on do it for the kids" even though their health insurance soars, their retirement stands in jeopardy, and their principal has one thing on his/her mind: Test Scores.

But, hey, lets screw with those who can't speak for themselves. Isn't that the American way?