He lied yesterday and got caught when he made the claim every 30 secs someone files for bankruptcy because they can't afford healthcare. He is using todays recession to turn us into France. Pretty soon he will call for a law limiting overtime for everyone. He'll claim because people who work over 40 hours a week are taking up a job that someone unemployeed could do.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
He lied yesterday and got caught when he made the claim every 30 secs someone files for bankruptcy because they can't afford healthcare. He is using todays recession to turn us into France. Pretty soon he will call for a law limiting overtime for everyone. He'll claim because people who work over 40 hours a week are taking up a job that someone unemployeed could do.
It's a sad state of affairs when those with evil intent can lie to the stupid to fund the greedy under the guise of change and/or reform. This is a governmental power grab, no unlike Hitler in Germany or Mussolini in Italy. There are false issues to which directed 'solutions' are offered and presidential power is being weilded to bring the unwilling to goose-step to the tune the president is playing. Nothing good can come of this; every move the president makes;
a: alienates the productive amongst us
b: negatively affects the financial markets that are crushing us
c: generates more negativity from those foreign powers the socialists were loooking to stroke
in the first place.
I can only hope that:
1: the American electorate is sufficiently educated or intelligent or otherwise
brutalized to vote out the current majority in the midterm elections
2: ditto for "b" above, except for the presidential election in 2012...this bum
should not serve a second term
If not, there will be nothing worth saving in North America anymore, as we will have become
that which we despise.
It was in the press confrence afterwards. When they were asked about their facts and where they got them from, they stumbled around. I haven't had time to look around this morning but watched it twice last night to get it right. I still have it recorded on my DVR until 6 today.
Here is the only thing so far I found but it doesn't mention the false claim of 30secs stuff.
By SALLY C. PIPES
The Democrats' case to expand government health care is so full of holes that passing it quickly is their only hope. If Americans slow down and ask questions, they will be hard-put to come up with answers.
In fact, if members of Congress slow down long enough to read the detailed reports of their own Congressional Budget Office (CBO) -- or even its director's recent Senate testimony -- they will understand that many of the slogans they use to justify government intervention are false.
Statist health-care reform, for example, is said to be needed to help the economy recover in a period of deepening gloom. The president has made this argument on numerous occasions, such as earlier this week when he announced Kathleen Sebelius as his pick for Secretary of Health and Human Resources. So too has Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "The costly failure of our health care system affects the financial health of our businesses," Mr. Waxman said at a conference at Families USA, the national nonprofit dedicated to health care for all Americans. "It affects our competitiveness in the world . . . This isn't something to put off; this is something to do right now to help fix our economy."
Health care certainly plays a major role in the U.S. economy, and by almost any objective account a highly positive role. It employs 13 million Americans and accounts for one out of 10 jobs. But the assertion that the costs of providing health insurance cripples American corporations in the global economy is simply wrong.
CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf explained this last week to the Senate Committee on Finance, which is chaired by Max Baucus, a leading proponent of government health care. The point is that for employers, health care is merely a part of total compensation: It reduces cash compensation for employees but it does not increase costs of employment. To argue otherwise is to argue for lower total U.S. compensation -- that is, lower wages for U.S. workers. Said Mr. Elmendorf, "the costs of providing health insurance to their workers are not a competitive disadvantage to U.S.-based firms."
Another common argument for more government insurance is that the uninsured shift costs to private payers when they avail themselves of the health-care safety net -- thus jacking up health-care premiums in the private sector. Many reform advocates make this claim, including Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D., Mass.) and Sen. Baucus in an op-ed in this newspaper.
This is not the case. In the first place, a recent CBO report ("Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals, " December 2008) is clear on one issue: Working to achieve universal coverage through expanding government's role in health care will increase total costs and therefore either increase premiums or taxes, not reduce them. As for the argument that the uninsured shift costs, Mr. Elmendorf was quite direct dispelling this myth in his testimony before Mr. Baucus's committee. "Overall," he said, "the effect of uncompensated care on private-sector payment rates appears to be limited."
In fact, insofar as there is a cost shift, it derives from the government programs Medicare and Medicaid, which reimburse providers at rates roughly 20% to 40% lower than the private providers. This has been detailed by the widely used and quoted health consultant firm, the Lewin Group. But this is conveniently ignored by those who want to expand government health care.
Preventative care, disease management and electronic medical records are also constantly cited as big cost-savers. The idea here is that if our health-care system was set up to prevent disease rather than just treat it, and could do so without duplicative paper records, it could save money. It's a great hypothesis, but research does not indicate it amounts to much. "In many cases," as Mr. Elmendorf testified regarding such initiatives, "those studies do not support claims of reductions in health spending or budgetary reductions."
Americans like their current health care, its plethora of choice and its intensive, high tech approach to fixing our ailments. A Gallup survey in December reported that "on balance, Americans still favor maintaining the current system, 49% to 41%." But the CBO is very clear that saving money on health care involves doing less of the very things Americans like the most.
"Studies attribute the bulk of the cost of growth to the development of new treatments and other medical technologies," the CBO notes in a report issued last December, later adding, "Given the central role of medical technology in cost growth, reducing or slowing spending over the long term would probably require decreasing the pace of adopting new treatments and procedures or limiting the breadth of their application."
In other words, reducing costs means rationing the care of those who currently have private insurance and Medicare. Ms. Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute and author of "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care" (Pacific Research Institute, 2008).
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
[/align][/align]President Barack Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress earlier this week about his plans to revitalize, and in some cases reshape, the U.S. economy. Health-care reform plays a central role in the Administration's assessment of what ails the economy going forward. To that end, Obama proposed a $624 billion reserve fund in his recently released $3.5 trillion federal budget to serve as a "down payment" on health care reform.
To underscore the need for a radical transformation of the way the health care system works, the president cited several statistics in his speech that purport to demonstrate the magnitude of the crisis in the health care system. But the numbers Obama cited to make the case for his health care plan are wildly exaggerated, according to an analysis by The Heartland Institute. Greg Scandlen, director of the institute's Consumers for Health Care Choices, fact-checked the president's assertions and found three of them to be demonstrably false, while a fourth was highly questionable.
Obama said that the rising cost of health care causes a bankruptcy, "every 30 seconds." Scandlen calculates that the number of bankruptcies due to health care costs alone would exceed one million a year at that rate. But the total number of bankruptcies from all causes in 2007 was just under 825,000, with health care reasons making up at most 5 percent of those. The president's statistic is simply untrue. Similarly, President Obama's claim that health insurance premiums have risen "four times as fast as wages" over the past eight years is wrong. Scandlen cited figures that show premiums increasing at 6 percent a year for the past five years while wages grew at 4 percent. That is a rate of increase roughly equal to wage growth, not much higher as the president claimed.
Hat tip: RedStateBut Obama was not finished making greatly exaggerated claims to support his position that the government should radically alter the health care system. The president said that the number of uninsured Americans increased by a million a year each year of the Bush Administration. The actual number of uninsured went up by 5.5 million, from 39.5 million in 2001 to 45 million in 2007, the last year for which figures are available. Furthermore, Scandlen points out that as a percentage of the population, the number of uninsured today is actually less (15.3%) than it was in 1995-1998 during the Clinton Administration.
Lastly, Obama said that this year, 1.5 million Americans could lose their homes as a direct result of skyrocketing health care costs. Scandlen estimates that as many at 3 million Americans will lose their homes this year, but finds Obama's claim that 50 percent of them will be caused by medical bills, as opposed to sub-prime mortgage resets and job losses a dubious one.
Mark Twain famously quipped that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. The Administration can likely cite a report or a paper to lend credence to the president's claims on health care. But the numbers are beside the point. It is the sense of urgency that the president's figures convey that is most important. President Obama engaged in a classic political scare tactic by citing false statistics in his speech to Congress. Candidate Obama said he would change the culture of how things get done in Washington, promised honesty and transparency from his Administration, and billed himself as a different kind of politician. But in his economic address this week, President Obama proved to be little more than a snake-oil salesman peddling his cures.[/align]
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
The fact that he is trying to push socializedhealth care, especially right now is probably good for another1000 point loss on the Dow...at least.Obama is having more than anything to do with any bankruptcies that are taking place, but I have him figured out.
In order to implement socialism, you must first destroy capitalism.
That is his plan folks. In order for him to be the next FDR, he has to push us into a full blown depression first. Socialized Medicine, and every thing they can dream up to fall under that umbrella is the crowning jewel for these commie bastards. Hillary failed in 93, and they will burn down America to make sure they succeed this time.
C. Davis
__________________ Am I greedy because I don't want to give you what is mine?
or
Are you greedy because you want to take what is not yours?
that might actually be part of the plan. He has only so long that he can blame the downhill on Bush, at some point people will start saying "you've been in charge xx months/years and it's still going down" If he drives it down quick, he can blame Bush, then when it bottoms out and starts coming back up, which is inevitable sooner or later, he can take credit. the catch is the timing. If we keep going down to long he loses the ability to blame Bush.
that might actually be part of the plan. He has only so long that he can blame the downhill on Bush, at some point people will start saying "you've been in charge xx months/years and it's still going down" If he drives it down quick, he can blame Bush, then when it bottoms out and starts coming back up, which is inevitable sooner or later, he can take credit. the catch is the timing. If we keep going down to long he loses the ability to blame Bush.
I think the problem is more serious than that. I think Dick Morris was right when he said that Obama isa rarepolitician in the fact that he is more than happy to lose an election just as long as his ideology wins. If he can 'change' America to his liking in his first term, he may be content to not have a second term.
Morris said Clinton would never do such a thing
C. Davis
__________________ Am I greedy because I don't want to give you what is mine?
or
Are you greedy because you want to take what is not yours?
WHAT?????????
