Two Examples of Deceit...

by j. wright October 22, 2009
.
.
In my construction supervision days, there was a time when the boss asked my Project Manager and me to each generate an estimate of a major renovation of an existing home in the exclusive Rancho Santa Fe community north of San Diego. It took us a couple of days and when we were finished, both of us had estimated a cost of slightly more than $700,000.

With estimates in hand we ventured into the boss’s office where he perused our numbers and began to line out various portions. We asked, “Are those items being deleted from the project?”

“No,” he answered, “Your numbers are too high.”

When the Senate Majority leader in Washington, D.C. attempted to remove about $250 billion dollars of future Medicare payments to doctors from the total cost of the proposed health care plan and pay for it “off budget” (Read: add it to the annual deficit.) the first thing I thought of was what my former employer attempted to create: a nice looking price, (a “low-ball”) but in the end, the home owner had to face the real cost of more than $700,000 as we had originally estimated.

I don’t know what most folks would call a stunt like that, but the word deceitful comes to my mind. The same applies to what the Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attempted. And to the credit of twelve Senators from his own party plus the opposing Republicans, his attempt failed miserably. Maybe that’s a harbinger of things to come if and when a nationalized health care bill comes up for a vote.

No doubt our current health provider system needs improving. Beginning with a simpler plan we can afford financially seems more in order than to venture into the unknown and create additional unacceptable debt.
.
One such idea comes from the Coalition to Protect Patients Rights, an organization that opposes congressional efforts to revamp the health-care system, the group opposes all the legislation being proposed in the House and the Senate. The bills avoid giving patients control of their health care.
.
The coalition’s stance includes:
.
1. allowing people to buy insurance across state lines,
2. advocating for health savings accounts,
3. opposing the public option of government-run insurance and
4. giving patients vouchers and tax credits to purchase insurance.
.
The group also wants a revamping of medical malpractice suit filings that they say adds billions to health-care costs annually. Quoting one of the doctors involved, “What we want is a system where the patient controls their own destiny.”
.
Baby steps... not a total overhaul of our existing system.
.
jaq~

So Much For Transparency..."

j. wright - 10/19/2009
.
On August 21, 2008, Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama said in a televised campaign stop that as president, when it came down to deciding on health care reform that it would be done out in the open with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, doctors, hospital and insurance company reps all gathered around a big table and televised on C-Span for the entire country to see. Transparency.
.
Apparently Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Democrat Senators Max Baucus of Montana and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel didn’t see that speech. Either that or Barack Obama’s words mean nothing.
.
Those individuals, sans any Republicans, Independents, doctors, nurses, insurance execs etc. are meeting behind closed doors, not on C-Span, to decide what 1/6 of the nation’s total economy and 300,000,000 Americans health provider system will look like for generations to come. I’d be fearful of buying a used car from them let alone trust them to destroy our current health care system and replace it with one that looks like it will offer less to more, cost trillions we don’t have and still leave millions of Americans uninsured. This power grab is called progress? Only in Washington, D.C.
.
What ever happened to the “transparency” we heard so much about during the campaign? So far it seems to be missing in the Obama Administration; the administration that was purportedly based on “Change, change you can believe in.” So much for words, which candidate Obama said many times, have meaning. Really?
.
When the politicians listed above finish their work, their product will then be revised again in a Joint Conference Committee; mostly Democrats behind closed doors before being voted on by both Houses. No televised hearings, definitely no “transparency.” Duped again

Debates Won: Wars Lost...

by j. wright - October 8, 2009


In a recent Wall Street Journal article, former Bush Administration White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove indicated, “The GOP is Winning the Health-Care Debate.”
.
Allow me to take on a former tennis great John McEnroe in-your-face attitude for a second: ''Winning the Debate? But Losing the War? You Can’t be Serious!” Great... if that's a victory please excuse me whilst my head explodes!
.
The Marxist idiots many of us voted into office are going to pass their idea of national health reform regardless of rapidly growing public disatisfaction and the possible political consequences. That's supposed to be a win for the nation?
.
Once in place, especially with Obama's veto pen until 2012, their idea of health reform will never be repealed and eventually we'll be ''enjoying'' a single payer monstrosity similar, maybe worse, than that in the UK and Canada.
.
Its becoming more and more plain that these power guzzling Marxists have no conscience when they are in the majority, and in typical liberal fashion, have this inane belief that they and they alone know what is best for the rest of us, the uneducated inferior types.
.
Sure, many of them will suffer at the polls in 2010 but it’s a small price to pay for their cause, as again, they will have forced their will upon us.To put it bluntly, we've had it. And I'd dearly love to be wrong.
.
Additionally, even with the so-called pass the CBO just gave Senator Max Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee's version of national health care; the numbers are a joke.
.
Out of that expected cost of $829-billion spread over ten years is a huge reduction in Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals of almost half; $404 billion. It's doubtful that will happen. Too many politicians see the folly in screwing with the seniors.The additional proposed taxes and fees will certainly take effect but not enough to offset the ''savings'' in lower Medicare expenses.
.
Then there's the so-called savings to be garnered by eliminating Medicare ''fraud and waste'' to the tune of $500 billion? LMAO! As if any Congress ever discovered fraud and waste and did anything.
.
So let's pretend this plan of theirs works for ten years. After that there is no allotment of money on any one's table to maintain this monster entitlement plan. Like now, Medicare/Medicaid is costing ten times what was planned at its inception 25 or so years ago. Imagine what our kids and their kid's kids will be facing in a couple of decades.
.
The radical leftists have been compared to as an army of ants. Close, only worse. The ants aren't so much interested in control and power as they are in survival.
.
They will accept a loss of the House in 2010 as long as they pass nationalized health care ''reform'' now.Like good socialists, they love their martyrs and are a patient lot. Sooner or later they would regain the House and control of the taxpayer dollars.
.
Personally, I don't see a miracle in the making that will prevent them from passing Obamacare or whatever it’s called. And the arrogant One's ego trip will be nauseating to behold when that takes place.

jaq~

Now Even the Lawmakers Can't Understand What They Propose...

by j. wright - October 3, 2009
.

In the wee hours of the morning last Friday, the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Senator Max Baucus, (D-Montana) completed the mark up of their proposed health care reform bill. The committee has been working with what is described as a “conceptual” version, or one prepared in common sense language. It had been given in part to the their staffers, lawyers, who converted it to legislative language before an upcoming floor vote.
.
This is a portion of a quote from Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.): “I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life. We, we write in this committee and legislate with plain English and I think most of us can understand most of that. When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don’t think anybody had a clue--including people who have served on this committee for decades--what he was talking about.”
.
There was more but perhaps you get the gist. The Senate Finance Committee is the same committee that voted down a proposal to have the bill placed on the Internet 72 hours before an up-down vote takes place on the floor. Senator John F. Kerry, (D-Mass.) indicated it would be too confusing. Was he implying that the average American is too stupid to understand words?
.
What I don’t understand is how the Obama Administration and the leftist Democrat legislators react to national polls concerning the public’s seeming disfavor with the Afghanistan conflict, yet totally ignore more conclusive polls concerning widespread opposition to major health care overhaul. Am I one of those average Americans Senator Kerry was speaking about? Maybe so but I do understand words.