The Health “CARE” Bill boondoggle

The house released a copy of the proposed “reform” to health care, in a 1018 page bill. Which doesn’t reform health care, it actually should be called the “Health INSURANCE take-over act”;

The first thing I notice is that our “representatives” ( I put this in quotes because these people don’t represent us and do our wishes they represent themselves and the special interests ) tend to confuse health CARE with health INSURANCE. Which are actually two different issues.

There are so many issues within this bill that trouble me I would need an entire BOOK to tell you about it, you should be troubled with it too.

One of the problems I see is that it bails out  the Massachusetts “Universal Health Care” System by taking on its debt. If “Universal Health Care” is supposed to save money why would we need to bail out the MA plan? Simple answer the system doesn’t work for Massachusetts. The cost of health care in MA is sky rocketing to the point where the Federal Government has had to bail it out more than once.

One of the first thing I noticed was the “NEW” bureaucracy it creates, lets take a look at who is going to run this boondoggle. It all looks fine on paper however it gives the “President” unlimited power over the “Health INSURANCE Industry”, all of the members of this board are either directly or indirectly, politically appointed by the POTUS. This is the FIRST of several bureaucracies instituted by this bill.

Health Care Advisory Board would consist of:

SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

1. The Surgeon General – A Presidential political appointee
2. 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.
3. 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General ( A Presidential political appointee) of the United States.
4. Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint
   The Bill, page 33 

These political appointees will be responsible for setting health insurance “STANDARDS”

The Health Benefits Advisory Committee
shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards.

including categories of covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes, and cost-sharing; and (B) the cost-sharing levels for enhanced plans and premium plans (as provided under 14 section 203(c)) consistent with paragraph (5)

 

And like in Massachusetts the effect of this will be:

Costs have risen for individuals because, under this plan, as under any mandatory insurance scheme, the government must define what constitutes an acceptable insurance policy. As a result, special interest groups have been given both the incentive and the means to lobby politicians to include their pet benefits as part of the government-approved plan. Consequently, the state government requires all patients to purchase “benefits” that are useless to many of them—benefits they would never voluntarily choose to purchase in a free market. For example, Massachusetts currently requires insurance plans to include forty-three mandatory benefits, including in vitro fertilization, blood lead poisoning treatment, and chiropractor services—whether or not customers want them. Residents must purchase alcoholism therapy benefits, even if they are teetotalers. These mandated benefits have raised the costs of health insurance in Massachusetts by 23 to 56 percent.

Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America

It also provides changes to the Internal Revenue Service to do the following:

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE

The Bill, page 178

So, who is it that decides what is or isn’t acceptable? You guessed it directly or indirectly the “PRESIDENTIAL POLITICAL APOINTEES”. Do you REALLY get to keep the plan you are happy with? Not if it doesn’t meet political standards.

Raising taxes for just the rich? I don’t thing so, not according to the verbiage of this bill, so how much taxes will YOU pay?

a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over (2) the amount of gross income specified in 4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.The Bill, page 168

And how is your employer effected?

In the case of any employer who fails (during any period with respect to which the election under subsection (a) is in effect) to satisfy the health coverage participation requirements with respect to any employee to whom such election applies, there is hereby imposed on each such failure  with respect to each such employee a tax of $100 for each day in the period beginning on the date such failure first occurs and ending on the date such failure is corrected.The Bill, page 181

This Government take over of the health insurance industry goes on and on.

The atrocities this bill represents is insulting to the American people because this bill is nothing more than another take over by a government out of control.

I AM DEMANDING THAT MY REPRESENTATIVES READ THE DAMN BILL, AND STOP THIS MADNESS.

WE ALL NEED TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND STOP THIS BLANTENT CORRUPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

When are people going to realize?

I have a nagging question; When are people going to realize that the Democrats don't care about the little guy, they only care about themselves.

They will say anything to get what THEY want, lying to the general public.

Lets take a little look at

Waxman-Markey's
H.R. 2454 or the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

First of all there is Nancy Pelosi:
Her campaign received 10$ from the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn, guess who these people really are... Well they are "GE" who stands to make a fortune if the bill makes it into law.

How about "personal wealth"; There is the Clean Energy Fuels Corp that she is invested in, the stocks on this company currently are running about $9 dollars a share; however if this bill is signed into law, the potential to make millions is there. Pelosi is a shareholder in Clean Energy Fuels (CLNE) and purchased between $50K - $100K in shares on May 25th . Then there is her purchase of between $50k - $100k worth of shares in GE, another company positioned to make trillions if this bill passes.

So is she looking out for you??? or is she really looking to line her pockets with your money?

Now we have Rep. Waxman; this is a man who doesn't even know what is in a bill HE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE WRITTEN

So what do you think is in it for him?
Well for starters his second biggest campaign contributor is National Cable & Telecommunications Assn, well of course its none other than GE.

Is he looking out for you? or again just positioning himself to line his pockets with your money.


Next is Rep Markey:
Low and behold National Cable & Telecommunications Assn contributed to his campaign too. Imagine that.

You really have to ask yourself are these people really working for YOU???? or are they really trying to pick your pockets?

You decide.....

Open Letter to Congressmen LoBiondo

Sir, I don't know what motivated you to sell out the American people and more specifically your constituents today by voting FOR the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” H.R. 2454 commonly known as Cap and Trade bill.

Not a single person I talked to here in South Jersey wanted that bill passed, conservate or liberal alike; we simply can't afford the additional taxes, and destruction of jobs which will occur. A lot of them I bet will be in the Aviation Industry, which I though you were a proponent of.

I hope the gains you might have gotten for selling your constituents out were well worth our vote in the next election. As the minority leader of your own party said, this will be a defining moment, the people, who you are supposed to represent will remember this come election day.

Here's where it starts

Rule # 4 Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

White House Changes the Terms of a Campaign Pledge About Posting Bills Online

"When there's a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government's doing," Mr. Obama said as a candidate

Here is where we can start using their own rules against them....

Will the Republican's make them follow their own rules?

Will Conservatives make them follow their own rules?

Only time will tell, but I am not holding my breath!

Guess I have to eat my words, go and support this 72 hour rule
I was informed via my twitter account shortly after posting this:
Click here or on the image below to find out more
Thank you, NJ Tax Revolution for pointing me there!

The First StepUnderstanding the current political climate

We have a situation in today's political realm where the left-wing Democratic party in general, and the Obama administration in particular are bombarding us with so many issues, so fast, in so many directions, it makes your head spin. I have become so frustrated with "MY" government that, in the infamous words of Glenn Beck it makes blood shoot out of my eyes.

How do we as Conservatives deal with radical left wing liberals?

Our first step is to understand the tactics the ideological left are employing.
By understanding these tactics we can effectively counter their attacks.

You have to also understand, the left play on peoples EMOTIONS, and not on logic or facts in these debates.

The Democrats and this Administration are defiantly following Saul Alinsky's rules for Radicals

Rule One

Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.

Rule Two

Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication. I feel the best counter to this tactic is to keep the left on focus, you are there to deal with one issue and one issue only, when they go off subject, politely; but firmly refocus the debate. I have noticed during my debates with left wing ideologists they tend to bring up other subjects or point to something that wasn't an issue at the time. You will notice here the left wing activist, and part time actress going off subject by pointing out "other issues" rather than staying on the issue at hand, when the person doing the interview brings her back to the subject, she denies having said what she said. How do we counter this, focus, focus, focus remember these people are emotional, and become confused very easily. When the debate doesn't go their way, they try to change the subject. Keep them on task!

Rule Three

Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address. Again; remember focus focus, keep them on task, don't let them change the subject. If they try refocus the debate to the original subject at hand.

Rule Four

Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity." Remember this goes both ways

Rule Five

Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. The best defense to this tactic is to recognize it for what it is; and don't play their game. They are specifically looking to get a rise out of you. They are looking to get you to the point where you blow your cool. Once this tactic is identified, call it what it is; but don't play into it.

Rule Six

A good tactic is one your people enjoy This isn't really a tactic, it appears to be a means to control their troops. We should follow this "tactic" as well. I find it very amusing when the person I am debating at the time, stutters, gets upset, has a temper tantrum. Recently I was debating this administrations current spending policies with a co-worker. His defense to my opinion was (as typical) it was all George W Bush's fault, he spent so much money in the past eight years it got us into this mess; I stopped the debate and with a very simple statement "So let me get this straight, Bush's spending was an error; right?" he replied "Yes it was" "Ok, so I'll admit, that Bush's spending WAS an error; Now that we have established that his spending was in error, This administration in order to fix that error is quadrupling that error? Does that really make sense to you?" At this point in time, my debate opponent flew into a rage, and walked away. He had no defense to my comments. So lets have some fun with this, and as long as your factually correct, the left has no real defense.

Rule Seven

A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time.... Here we should keep them on their task, they will soon tire of it

Rule Eight

Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. We need to follow this tactic, see my explaination for rule 10.

Rule Nine

The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself, FDR; Words well spoken, here we need to eliminate the fear; fear is perpetuated with a lack of knowledge. We need to enlighten the general public with true facts. Remember everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but NOT THEIR OWN FACTS.

Rule Ten

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. Here we need to focus, I think we should create a central "PUBLIC" website, something with an easy to remember address, and as each individual issue is presented, the main website, should then have a link to that issue, our point of view on these issues should be explained in easy to understand language. Sometimes we forget not everyone understands what we are saying. Along with this we need to "assign" an individual an expert in the field; weather it be a "doctor for health care", or a "prominent legal immigrant for border control/illegal immigration" . Then every time this issue is addressed by the opposition, our spokes person should then hold a press conference to do two things report on the facts and secondly to tell people where they can get more information (advertise our website). Weather we want to believe it or not we live in a digital age, lets utilize this tool to the best of our advantage. These individuals should be fully briefed on how to STAY FOCUSED. When a reporter goes off subject, politely but firmly regain focus. These individuals do not have to necessarily be politicians. Remember they should be experts in the field of the issue they represent.

Rule Eleven

If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative.

Rule Twelve

The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

Rule Thirteen

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting]arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...' "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)

Remember I am not a political analyst, so I may be wrong on this subject, there may be better ideas on how to counter these rules for radicals. I just looked at these rules and with some common sense thought of ways to counter their effects.