About those “Death Panels”
In response to Sarah Palin’s alleged “death panels”…yesterday, we heard that the Senate had removed the “end-of-life” provision from the health care reform bill because it could be “easily misinterpreted” or better yet, “incorrectly implemented”. Isn't it funny how something that supposedly didn't exist had to be removed by the Senate?
About the Publicly Funded Abortions
Although we hear those on the left (who so strongly support this bill that isn't even really written yet) tirelessly denounce the accusations that the public option would cover abortions, an amendment proposed by conservative congressional members to clearly and specifically state as much was voted down by democratic members. Now, why would they be opposed to adding an amendment that prevents a practice that, according to them, won't happen anyway? If it doesn't cover abortions...then language prohibiting should only reinforce the fact. I mean, we wouldn't want anything to be "easily misinterpreted" or "incorrectly implemented" when it comes to tax payer funded abortion, would we?
The Farce of a Public Option Creating Competition in a Free Market
Isn't it funny that President Obama recently used the Post Office as an example of how well a government run program can work hand in hand, skipping through the daisies with private industries, when in fact, the government has imposed a price floor on Fed Ex and UPS so they can't charge LESS than the Postal Service. Do UPS and Fed Ex thrive anyway? Yes…because they operate efficiently. Hmmm...but imagine how much lower their prices could be if they were allowed the opportunity to truly compete.
In essence, by giving us this government plan called the Postal Service, the government is actually forcing us to pay artificially increased prices. Also, how sad is it that private companies are forced to raise their prices to meet the USPS rates, yet the postal service is so inefficient that it can only meet these prices with government subsidies.
(Isn't it ironic that price fixing is illegal...unless the government is doing the fixing? Kind of like the fact that Ponzi schemes are illegal...unless they’re called “Social Security“. But, I digress..)
Another example of a brilliant effort for government to insert artificial competition into the "free market"...Fannie and Freddie. Hmmm...that worked out well, didn't it? Let's form a government controlled secondary market lender that creates a bogus demand for high risk loans, forcing the primary lending market to supply them. Yeah, that's a great idea!
Then, there's Medicare...which Rep. Scott's associate pretty much used as a fabulous example of why a public option WILL NOT work. He explained, very clearly, how Medicare short pays the hospitals and doctors, forcing them to make up for that revenue by raising prices for everyone else...therefore raising insurance premiums.
I've heard reform proponents describe the public option as "Medicare for all"...Can you imagine how much the medical industry will have to raise the prices for everyone else then???
Regarding “Surcharges on the wealthy and big businesses”
I'd also like to point out the ridiculous suggestion that only the big, rich companies will have to pay this "surcharge" for not providing health insurance to its employees.
Although the limit has been raised from a payroll of $250K to $500K...think about it, people. That's a business that employs 10 people making $50K...or 20 people making $25K. If you impose on them an 8% surcharge, it would only make sense for them to cut salaries in an effort to be under the $500K mark...or better yet, they might just cut an employee or two to get there. That should do wonders for the unemployment rate.
Oh yeah, did anyone else notice the "unexpected mid-month spike in first-time jobless claims" this week? Isn't is strange that unemployment increased just weeks after Congress has once again raised the minimum wage rate? We didn't see that one coming, now did we?
Back to “Government Price Fixing” for a minute…
I mean, it only makes sense. If you have to pay each employee more, you'll have to employ fewer of them to maintain your expenses. Duh. Another example of government price fixing.
Let's face it...a free market only works if it is...well...free. If you keep inserting the government into it, it's going to collapse...or throw its hands up and take its money elsewhere...like Switzerland.
In response to Sarah Palin’s alleged “death panels”…yesterday, we heard that the Senate had removed the “end-of-life” provision from the health care reform bill because it could be “easily misinterpreted” or better yet, “incorrectly implemented”. Isn't it funny how something that supposedly didn't exist had to be removed by the Senate?
About the Publicly Funded Abortions
Although we hear those on the left (who so strongly support this bill that isn't even really written yet) tirelessly denounce the accusations that the public option would cover abortions, an amendment proposed by conservative congressional members to clearly and specifically state as much was voted down by democratic members. Now, why would they be opposed to adding an amendment that prevents a practice that, according to them, won't happen anyway? If it doesn't cover abortions...then language prohibiting should only reinforce the fact. I mean, we wouldn't want anything to be "easily misinterpreted" or "incorrectly implemented" when it comes to tax payer funded abortion, would we?
The Farce of a Public Option Creating Competition in a Free Market
Isn't it funny that President Obama recently used the Post Office as an example of how well a government run program can work hand in hand, skipping through the daisies with private industries, when in fact, the government has imposed a price floor on Fed Ex and UPS so they can't charge LESS than the Postal Service. Do UPS and Fed Ex thrive anyway? Yes…because they operate efficiently. Hmmm...but imagine how much lower their prices could be if they were allowed the opportunity to truly compete.
In essence, by giving us this government plan called the Postal Service, the government is actually forcing us to pay artificially increased prices. Also, how sad is it that private companies are forced to raise their prices to meet the USPS rates, yet the postal service is so inefficient that it can only meet these prices with government subsidies.
(Isn't it ironic that price fixing is illegal...unless the government is doing the fixing? Kind of like the fact that Ponzi schemes are illegal...unless they’re called “Social Security“. But, I digress..)
Another example of a brilliant effort for government to insert artificial competition into the "free market"...Fannie and Freddie. Hmmm...that worked out well, didn't it? Let's form a government controlled secondary market lender that creates a bogus demand for high risk loans, forcing the primary lending market to supply them. Yeah, that's a great idea!
Then, there's Medicare...which Rep. Scott's associate pretty much used as a fabulous example of why a public option WILL NOT work. He explained, very clearly, how Medicare short pays the hospitals and doctors, forcing them to make up for that revenue by raising prices for everyone else...therefore raising insurance premiums.
I've heard reform proponents describe the public option as "Medicare for all"...Can you imagine how much the medical industry will have to raise the prices for everyone else then???
Regarding “Surcharges on the wealthy and big businesses”
I'd also like to point out the ridiculous suggestion that only the big, rich companies will have to pay this "surcharge" for not providing health insurance to its employees.
Although the limit has been raised from a payroll of $250K to $500K...think about it, people. That's a business that employs 10 people making $50K...or 20 people making $25K. If you impose on them an 8% surcharge, it would only make sense for them to cut salaries in an effort to be under the $500K mark...or better yet, they might just cut an employee or two to get there. That should do wonders for the unemployment rate.
Oh yeah, did anyone else notice the "unexpected mid-month spike in first-time jobless claims" this week? Isn't is strange that unemployment increased just weeks after Congress has once again raised the minimum wage rate? We didn't see that one coming, now did we?
Back to “Government Price Fixing” for a minute…
I mean, it only makes sense. If you have to pay each employee more, you'll have to employ fewer of them to maintain your expenses. Duh. Another example of government price fixing.
Let's face it...a free market only works if it is...well...free. If you keep inserting the government into it, it's going to collapse...or throw its hands up and take its money elsewhere...like Switzerland.



