As I was perusing the news this morning, an article caught my eye. It bore the headline “President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour,” and of course I couldn’t resist such a relevantly titled piece. Turns out Dana Milbanks of the Washington Post had in fact written an extremely enjoyable article chronicling the ever-inflating ego one B. Hussein Obama. The bulk of the piece was pretty standard commentary on the seemingly unfettered arrogance of Senator Obama, but one particular quote, apparently overheard in one of his “adoration sessions” with Democratic lawmakers in DC, sent my jaw dropping to the floor. Speaking to a handful of his disciples, Obama said, "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." Yes, that’s right, Barack Obama is not merely a man, not merely a politician, not merely a presidential candidate…he is a self-proclaimed symbol of all that is good in America. Ladies and gentleman, in light of this profound declaration, I propose we immediately begin construction of the Obama Monument, to be built directly in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. I’m sure Barack wouldn’t mind footing the bill.
Needless to say I am absolutely disgusted with the Senator…once again. And in this case I’m fed up for two reasons:
1) First, and perhaps most obviously, I am appalled with how highly Mr. Obama thinks of himself. It really takes a special kind of arrogance to effectively declare oneself a symbol of really just about anything. An athlete declaring himself a symbol of athleticism, a teacher declaring herself a symbol of sound guidance, or a doctor declaring himself a symbol of modern medicine; all of these are guilty of unbridled arrogance. The athlete’s fan, the teacher’s student, or the doctor’s patient can certainly pour these praises on their heroes, but the recipient should NEVER be the deliverer of his own praise. And that’s exactly what Obama has repeatedly done. And that is exactly why I am so disgusted.
Many people in the coming days will surely recycle the accusation of “elitism” in light of these comments. But I would challenge that charge. I would go as far as to say that this far surpasses mere elitism. I would go as far as to say that this is a worship of self. This is narcissism at its worst. And mark my words, narcissists NEVER MAKE GOOD LEADERS. Who wants to follow and respect someone who is in love with himself? People, especially the American people, tend to commit their loyalty and service to a humble leader who places those he leads above himself and checks his ego at the door before each and every decision he makes. This is not Barack Obama.
2) Now the second reason for my disgust is the senator’s dubious assertion that somehow America has strayed from our “best traditions” and that we must work to retain them again. This part of Obama’s comments really gets my blood boiling. Why? Because I love this country and everything she stands for with a passion, and its becoming increasingly clear that Barack Obama does not. Let’s just think about what the senator is implying in his statement. By saying that he represents the “possibility of America returning to our best traditions,” he suggests that over time the American people have drifted away from the great ideals communicated by our founding fathers, and that what he proposes as a potential President would restore us to these lost values. The Senator is dead wrong and to best explain why let’s first look at what America’s best traditions truly are and then let’s look at what Senator Obama proposes. (This should make it pretty clear).
America’s best traditions: ardent stalwart and defender of liberty throughout the world, prosperity through free enterprise and entrepreneurship, innovation through ingenuity and hard work, self betterment through independence, perseverance, and determination, and a limited government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Obama proposals: surrender in Iraq, income redistribution, no oil exploration, socialized healthcare, support of the welfare state, increased government spending and regulation
Don’t really line up, do they? This discovery should make it clear that if anyone has abandoned America’s best traditions it’s Barack Obama and all those who subscribe to his policy proposals. Senator Obama has no clue what this country is all about, and it’s terrifying. If he believes that his socialist-liberal agenda is a return to all that is good in America, then an Obama presidency would undoubtedly defame the great name of the United States of America. I would agree to a certain extent that a great many Americans need to return to their roots and get back in touch with the values that have sustained us as a country, but I vehemently reject Senator Obama as the symbol of such a movement. In fact, it is people like Senator Obama who have pressed our country further from our founding ideals. And it is people like Senator Obama that must be stopped from leading America further from her noble callings.
Senator Obama, you are not a symbol of America’s return to our best traditions. If anything, you represent the antithesis of what this great country represents. You’re annoyingly arrogant and as President you would mark a dark era in this country’s history, and I will do everything in my power to make sure you remain a junior Senator from Illinois.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
WHY BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS WRONG FOR AMERICA ---- TAXES
- B.H. Obama’s Proposal:
o It is utterly important to begin by understanding the basis for the freshman senator’s tax proposals. If you visit the website of change, aka barackobama.com, you will find that Obama declares one of his landmark goals to be to “restore fairness to the tax code.” Obama operates under the notion that in this day and age, the way in which Americans pay taxes is horrifically unfair. Thanks primarily to the Bush tax cuts, Obama believes the rich don’t pay enough in taxes and the middle and lower classes pay too much. This concept of social injustice provides the inspiration for the tax proposals we are about to discuss, and yes, such inspiration is completely flawed and, quite frankly, pretty disgusting (but we’ll talk about that soon enough). For now, let’s take a look at the details of the Barackonomics proposals.
o In his mission to bring wealthy Americans to tax justice, Obama would begin by allowing the top 2 rates of income taxation to return to 36% and 39.6% respectively. 36 and 40 cents of ever dollar the individuals and families in these tax brackets earn will be going to the government. But don’t worry, they’re rich so they can afford it, and that’s all that matters.
o Next up, Obama would remove the cap on the FICA tax (social security), making it applicable to all income, not just earnings under $102,000. Now to better understand such a just and fair proposal, it’s important to go through a brief refresher of how the Social Security tax works. Currently the tax is only enforced on the first $102,000 an individual earns. In other words, say a well-to-do accountant in New York City earns $200,000. Well, only the first $102,000 of that amount would be taxed for Social Security. The remaining $82,000 would be left untouched. In terms of rates, the self-employed pay 12.4% up to the $102,000 limit, while the regularly employed pay 6.2%, an amount matched by their employers. Under the glorious reign of a President B. Hussein Obama, the $102,000 cap I speak of would magically, yet fairly, disappear. All of the $200,000 our New York City account earned, not just the first $102,000, would be taxed. But again, it’s alright folks, the accountant’s wealthy, so we can tax him more and not feel bad about it.
o My friends the fun doesn’t stop there! Next on the Obama agenda would be a near doubling of the capital gains tax. Obama would raise the tax rate from the current 15% to an astounding 28%. Now for those of you who are not particularly familiar with the cap gains tax, it’s actually pretty simple. The capital gains tax, unlike Barrack Obama, is exactly what it says it is. And that is a tax on any profit you might reap from the capital you own and sell. What exactly is capital? Well, the most common forms of capital assets are stocks, bonds, and real estate. So to use another reader-friendly example, say a consultant here in Dallas is an avid investor and owns a handful of stock in AT&T Inc. Well one day our wise investor decides to sell this AT&T stock and collect his profit. Under the current cap gains tax, this individual would fork over 15% of the profits he reaps from that sale to the government. Under the Obama crusade for fairness, that same investor would in fact be forced to hand over almost 30% of the profits he gains from his investments. But don’t worry, because he can afford to invest, he’s probably rich, so increased taxes are definitely justified.
o Ok, that’s it. No more tax hikes….just kidding!! Of course there’s more!! Next on the list we have a proposed doubling of the tax on dividends. President Barrack would raise that tax rate from the current 15% to a whopping 30%. Once again, let me provide a brief refresher on what exactly the tax on dividends entails. When corporations and companies earn a profit, they can do one of two things. They can reinvest the money into the company or they can pay it to the company’s shareholders as a dividend. So a tax on those dividends means that if a small business owner in Alaska decides to invest in his buddy’s start up company, any money he earns as a shareholder will be taxed. Today, 15% of any reward that our Alaskan small business owner receives for investing in a profitable company will be going to the government. However, if the Fairness Express ever takes flight, President Obama would force him to hand over two times what he does now. But come on, the Alaskan guy has to be rich, so it’s only fair.
o Whew.., I think we’re done now. At this time, feel free to take a stretch break, grab a drink of water, lower your blood pressure, count to ten, and then read on.
- The Problem:
o Removing the cap…as if a tax hike of such monumental proportions isn’t enough, Obama’s proposed FICA increase would weaken some of the fundamental tenets of U.S. capitalism and enterprise: entrepreneurship and personal productivity. The removal of the Social Security cap would effectively punish the most ambitious and industrious people in the labor force. As workers earn more money and achieve greater success in their profession, more and more is withheld from their paycheck. And on top of this attack on individual success, employers are going to be less and less willing to award salaries greater than $102,000 as they’re forced to fork over 6.2% of the raise. Incentives are a hugely important and time-tested component of any capitalistic economy, and Obama’s proposed FICA increase would undoubtedly undermine the incentive to create new jobs, new wealth, and higher incomes.
o The cap gains disaster…with the stock market already deep into bear territory and the real estate market experiencing an historic slump, a near doubling of the capital gains tax would by far be the most pernicious of Obama’s tax proposals. When we look at the three primary consequences of such an increase, this bleak reality becomes clear:
§ Damage to the stock markets: Such a drastic increase in the tax on capital gains would wrest drastic and devastating results on capital, real estate, and equity markets. In the event of an Obama presidency, no one in their right mind would want to hold onto stock or real estate, knowing they would have to pay 28% of their profit in taxes, compared to today’s 15%. An impending Obama presidency would trigger mass selling, causing widespread panic in the stock market. The mere prospect of an Obama presidency and resulting cap gains hike would easily send the already ailing stock market into a full fledged crash. And assuredly the real estate market, in perhaps the worst condition it has ever seen, will fair no better.
§ Revenue drop: One of the primary purposes of tax hikes is the reduction of the deficit through increased government revenue (more taxes = more money for the government). Now Barrack Obama would like for you to believe that his tax increases, including the cap gains hike, would accomplish just this. But as it turns out, Barrack would be wrong. History tells us that capital gains tax increases actually do not increase revenue. In fact, it appears that such measures do exactly the opposite. Thus far the cap gains tax has only been increased once, in 1986. And what was the result? The result was a drop in revenues by 44% over the following 3 years! The capital gains tax has been cut a total of 3 times since its inception: 1981, 1997, 2003. Following these cuts, revenues rose by 49%, 49%, and 88% respectively! These numbers are astonishing, but the reasoning is quite clear: people are more willing to sell stock and real estate when they know less of their profit will be taken from them. And greater capital asset turnover means more money for the government.
§ Cut in private investment: Over half of all adults in this country own stock in some form or another, and in 2006, 8.5 million people paid capital gains taxes. These private investors would undoubtedly be devastated by Obama’s crushing increase. Again we must ask the question, who in the world would want to continue to invest when they will never see a third of what they make? Experts estimate that Obama’s cap gains proposals would eliminate billions of dollars in private investment, resulting in a horrendous reduction in economic growth per year. The stock market and private investment are yet another fundamental and integral part of our economic system that Barrack Obama would gravely endanger.
o And don’t forget dividends…just as a capital gains tax hike would discourage private investment, Obama’s proposed doubling of the tax on dividends would dissuade individuals from investing in job-creating companies. Again, who would want to continue putting money into companies knowing that a third of any money they get from such an endeavor would go straight to the government? American companies rely on investments from everyday Americans in order to expand their enterprises and sustain the kind of growth that has the power to create jobs and provide higher salaries for employees. Any increase in the tax on money these companies return to investors will surely have a negative impact on such growth. But doubling the tax?! That would discourage investors in the worst way and have disastrous consequences on companies that will be forced to make cuts themselves (i.e. salary, personnel, new positions, etc.)
o It’s not fair!.... Obama supporter and former VP candidate John Edwards explained Barrack’s tax philosophy better than I ever could when he dubiously claimed, “two Americas...one privileged, the other burdened...one America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks." Liberals often tout this notion of injustice as they campaign for middle class votes, and it is this highly polarizing and flawed belief in “two Americas” that define Obama’s proposals. But is he right? Is America really that unfair? You judge for yourself:
§ The Do-Nothing Wealthy Class that Doesn’t Pay Enough Taxes
· Richest 1% earn 16% of total national income but pays about 1/3 of our federal income tax
· Richest 10% earn 33% of total national income but pays about 2/3 of our federal income tax
· Top 1/5 of U.S. households (census burea divides households into quintiles when calculating income inequality) perform 1/3 of all labor in the economy
· Top 1/5 of U.S. households have most educated and productive workers
§ The Oppressed Lower Classes that Bear Our National Tax Burden
· Poorest 50% earn13% of total national income and pays less than 3 % of our federal income tax
So remind me again, Senator Obama, why do we need to raise the top 2 rates of income taxation, uncap the FICA tax, increase the capital gains tax, and double the tax on dividends? Because the current tax levels aren’t fair for the lower classes? Because the current tax levels favor a bunch of lazy rich folks? Because the current tax levels are oppressive to lower classes? Interesting…
o When they’re added up, all of Obama’s tax proposals could easily amount to the largest tax increase this country has every seen. Now that is change that I can not and will not believe in.
o It is utterly important to begin by understanding the basis for the freshman senator’s tax proposals. If you visit the website of change, aka barackobama.com, you will find that Obama declares one of his landmark goals to be to “restore fairness to the tax code.” Obama operates under the notion that in this day and age, the way in which Americans pay taxes is horrifically unfair. Thanks primarily to the Bush tax cuts, Obama believes the rich don’t pay enough in taxes and the middle and lower classes pay too much. This concept of social injustice provides the inspiration for the tax proposals we are about to discuss, and yes, such inspiration is completely flawed and, quite frankly, pretty disgusting (but we’ll talk about that soon enough). For now, let’s take a look at the details of the Barackonomics proposals.
o In his mission to bring wealthy Americans to tax justice, Obama would begin by allowing the top 2 rates of income taxation to return to 36% and 39.6% respectively. 36 and 40 cents of ever dollar the individuals and families in these tax brackets earn will be going to the government. But don’t worry, they’re rich so they can afford it, and that’s all that matters.
o Next up, Obama would remove the cap on the FICA tax (social security), making it applicable to all income, not just earnings under $102,000. Now to better understand such a just and fair proposal, it’s important to go through a brief refresher of how the Social Security tax works. Currently the tax is only enforced on the first $102,000 an individual earns. In other words, say a well-to-do accountant in New York City earns $200,000. Well, only the first $102,000 of that amount would be taxed for Social Security. The remaining $82,000 would be left untouched. In terms of rates, the self-employed pay 12.4% up to the $102,000 limit, while the regularly employed pay 6.2%, an amount matched by their employers. Under the glorious reign of a President B. Hussein Obama, the $102,000 cap I speak of would magically, yet fairly, disappear. All of the $200,000 our New York City account earned, not just the first $102,000, would be taxed. But again, it’s alright folks, the accountant’s wealthy, so we can tax him more and not feel bad about it.
o My friends the fun doesn’t stop there! Next on the Obama agenda would be a near doubling of the capital gains tax. Obama would raise the tax rate from the current 15% to an astounding 28%. Now for those of you who are not particularly familiar with the cap gains tax, it’s actually pretty simple. The capital gains tax, unlike Barrack Obama, is exactly what it says it is. And that is a tax on any profit you might reap from the capital you own and sell. What exactly is capital? Well, the most common forms of capital assets are stocks, bonds, and real estate. So to use another reader-friendly example, say a consultant here in Dallas is an avid investor and owns a handful of stock in AT&T Inc. Well one day our wise investor decides to sell this AT&T stock and collect his profit. Under the current cap gains tax, this individual would fork over 15% of the profits he reaps from that sale to the government. Under the Obama crusade for fairness, that same investor would in fact be forced to hand over almost 30% of the profits he gains from his investments. But don’t worry, because he can afford to invest, he’s probably rich, so increased taxes are definitely justified.
o Ok, that’s it. No more tax hikes….just kidding!! Of course there’s more!! Next on the list we have a proposed doubling of the tax on dividends. President Barrack would raise that tax rate from the current 15% to a whopping 30%. Once again, let me provide a brief refresher on what exactly the tax on dividends entails. When corporations and companies earn a profit, they can do one of two things. They can reinvest the money into the company or they can pay it to the company’s shareholders as a dividend. So a tax on those dividends means that if a small business owner in Alaska decides to invest in his buddy’s start up company, any money he earns as a shareholder will be taxed. Today, 15% of any reward that our Alaskan small business owner receives for investing in a profitable company will be going to the government. However, if the Fairness Express ever takes flight, President Obama would force him to hand over two times what he does now. But come on, the Alaskan guy has to be rich, so it’s only fair.
o Whew.., I think we’re done now. At this time, feel free to take a stretch break, grab a drink of water, lower your blood pressure, count to ten, and then read on.
- The Problem:
o Removing the cap…as if a tax hike of such monumental proportions isn’t enough, Obama’s proposed FICA increase would weaken some of the fundamental tenets of U.S. capitalism and enterprise: entrepreneurship and personal productivity. The removal of the Social Security cap would effectively punish the most ambitious and industrious people in the labor force. As workers earn more money and achieve greater success in their profession, more and more is withheld from their paycheck. And on top of this attack on individual success, employers are going to be less and less willing to award salaries greater than $102,000 as they’re forced to fork over 6.2% of the raise. Incentives are a hugely important and time-tested component of any capitalistic economy, and Obama’s proposed FICA increase would undoubtedly undermine the incentive to create new jobs, new wealth, and higher incomes.
o The cap gains disaster…with the stock market already deep into bear territory and the real estate market experiencing an historic slump, a near doubling of the capital gains tax would by far be the most pernicious of Obama’s tax proposals. When we look at the three primary consequences of such an increase, this bleak reality becomes clear:
§ Damage to the stock markets: Such a drastic increase in the tax on capital gains would wrest drastic and devastating results on capital, real estate, and equity markets. In the event of an Obama presidency, no one in their right mind would want to hold onto stock or real estate, knowing they would have to pay 28% of their profit in taxes, compared to today’s 15%. An impending Obama presidency would trigger mass selling, causing widespread panic in the stock market. The mere prospect of an Obama presidency and resulting cap gains hike would easily send the already ailing stock market into a full fledged crash. And assuredly the real estate market, in perhaps the worst condition it has ever seen, will fair no better.
§ Revenue drop: One of the primary purposes of tax hikes is the reduction of the deficit through increased government revenue (more taxes = more money for the government). Now Barrack Obama would like for you to believe that his tax increases, including the cap gains hike, would accomplish just this. But as it turns out, Barrack would be wrong. History tells us that capital gains tax increases actually do not increase revenue. In fact, it appears that such measures do exactly the opposite. Thus far the cap gains tax has only been increased once, in 1986. And what was the result? The result was a drop in revenues by 44% over the following 3 years! The capital gains tax has been cut a total of 3 times since its inception: 1981, 1997, 2003. Following these cuts, revenues rose by 49%, 49%, and 88% respectively! These numbers are astonishing, but the reasoning is quite clear: people are more willing to sell stock and real estate when they know less of their profit will be taken from them. And greater capital asset turnover means more money for the government.
§ Cut in private investment: Over half of all adults in this country own stock in some form or another, and in 2006, 8.5 million people paid capital gains taxes. These private investors would undoubtedly be devastated by Obama’s crushing increase. Again we must ask the question, who in the world would want to continue to invest when they will never see a third of what they make? Experts estimate that Obama’s cap gains proposals would eliminate billions of dollars in private investment, resulting in a horrendous reduction in economic growth per year. The stock market and private investment are yet another fundamental and integral part of our economic system that Barrack Obama would gravely endanger.
o And don’t forget dividends…just as a capital gains tax hike would discourage private investment, Obama’s proposed doubling of the tax on dividends would dissuade individuals from investing in job-creating companies. Again, who would want to continue putting money into companies knowing that a third of any money they get from such an endeavor would go straight to the government? American companies rely on investments from everyday Americans in order to expand their enterprises and sustain the kind of growth that has the power to create jobs and provide higher salaries for employees. Any increase in the tax on money these companies return to investors will surely have a negative impact on such growth. But doubling the tax?! That would discourage investors in the worst way and have disastrous consequences on companies that will be forced to make cuts themselves (i.e. salary, personnel, new positions, etc.)
o It’s not fair!.... Obama supporter and former VP candidate John Edwards explained Barrack’s tax philosophy better than I ever could when he dubiously claimed, “two Americas...one privileged, the other burdened...one America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks." Liberals often tout this notion of injustice as they campaign for middle class votes, and it is this highly polarizing and flawed belief in “two Americas” that define Obama’s proposals. But is he right? Is America really that unfair? You judge for yourself:
§ The Do-Nothing Wealthy Class that Doesn’t Pay Enough Taxes
· Richest 1% earn 16% of total national income but pays about 1/3 of our federal income tax
· Richest 10% earn 33% of total national income but pays about 2/3 of our federal income tax
· Top 1/5 of U.S. households (census burea divides households into quintiles when calculating income inequality) perform 1/3 of all labor in the economy
· Top 1/5 of U.S. households have most educated and productive workers
§ The Oppressed Lower Classes that Bear Our National Tax Burden
· Poorest 50% earn13% of total national income and pays less than 3 % of our federal income tax
So remind me again, Senator Obama, why do we need to raise the top 2 rates of income taxation, uncap the FICA tax, increase the capital gains tax, and double the tax on dividends? Because the current tax levels aren’t fair for the lower classes? Because the current tax levels favor a bunch of lazy rich folks? Because the current tax levels are oppressive to lower classes? Interesting…
o When they’re added up, all of Obama’s tax proposals could easily amount to the largest tax increase this country has every seen. Now that is change that I can not and will not believe in.
Friday, July 25, 2008
EXCUSE ME SENATOR?
Yesterday Senator Obama delivered a speech before an adoring audience in Berlin, Germany. Surprisingly I have very few complaints with the substance of his statements. He played it fairly safe and actually found room for some pretty standard conservative tenants. That said there was one part of the speech that just about ruined it for me. After his typical “this is our time” declaration, Obama said something that infuriated me:
“I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.”
Really Senator? Where to you get off traveling to a foreign country and apologizing for supposed American inequities and trespasses? Now I certainly don’t disagree that throughout the course of U.S. history, we as a freedom-loving people have made a few mistakes in extending equality to all people. To do so I would have to reject events and eras like the trail of tears, the civil rights movement, and Japanese internment. Of course we’ve made mistakes, but why do we need to travel the world preaching those mistakes? Discuss them here, debate them here, learn from them here, but don’t go to Europe and talk about how we’ve failed the world and not lived up to our “best intentions.” Mr. Obama, as a U.S. Senator and possible commander-in-chief you are one of the most recognizable ambassadors of this great country. Thus, it is your job to serve her well and proclaim her greatness to all you address. It is not, nor will it ever be you job to explain what you see as this country’s shortfalls to throngs of foreigners who hang on your every word. Here’s what I would suggest you say on your next Euro-Tour:
I know my country to be the greatest in the world. Since our inception, we have been an unyielding bulwark for liberty and a shining symbol of equality in the global community. As a great American who years ago visited this city once said, American always has been and always will be a shining city on a hill.
“I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.”
Really Senator? Where to you get off traveling to a foreign country and apologizing for supposed American inequities and trespasses? Now I certainly don’t disagree that throughout the course of U.S. history, we as a freedom-loving people have made a few mistakes in extending equality to all people. To do so I would have to reject events and eras like the trail of tears, the civil rights movement, and Japanese internment. Of course we’ve made mistakes, but why do we need to travel the world preaching those mistakes? Discuss them here, debate them here, learn from them here, but don’t go to Europe and talk about how we’ve failed the world and not lived up to our “best intentions.” Mr. Obama, as a U.S. Senator and possible commander-in-chief you are one of the most recognizable ambassadors of this great country. Thus, it is your job to serve her well and proclaim her greatness to all you address. It is not, nor will it ever be you job to explain what you see as this country’s shortfalls to throngs of foreigners who hang on your every word. Here’s what I would suggest you say on your next Euro-Tour:
I know my country to be the greatest in the world. Since our inception, we have been an unyielding bulwark for liberty and a shining symbol of equality in the global community. As a great American who years ago visited this city once said, American always has been and always will be a shining city on a hill.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
WHY BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS WRONG FOR AMERICA --- HEALTHCARE
- B.H. Obama’s proposal:
o The junior senator from Illinois proposes a “new national health plan” offered to all Americans, including the 47 million who are currently uninsured. This brand spanking new public healthcare plan would offer guaranteed eligibility, comprehensive benefits (similar to those given to U.S. Congressman), affordable premiums, and federal subsidies for families who don’t qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still require financial assistance. Everyone, and I mean everyone (see illegal immigrant comments below), will be insured.
o Now for those of you who aren’t exactly into the whole nationalized, government-controlled healthcare idea, Obama still provides you with the option of purchasing your own private insurance plan. To do this, Obama would create the “National Health Insurance Exchange,” a so-called “watchdog group” that would spearhead the effort to reform the private insurance market. How would the Insurance Exchange go about reforming private insurance? Well through increased government regulation of course! Obama’s Insurance Exchange would create “rules and standards” so that private insurance plans are suitably fair, affordable, and accessible. Under the watchful eye of the Exchange, insurance plans would be mandated to be “at least as generous as the new public plan,” and their differences would be made accessible to the masses.
o Now for those of you just starving for even more good old fashioned government control of the private sector, Obama would give you yet another spoon-full. Obama strongly proposes that any employer seen as not making a “meaningful contribution” to the cost of health coverage for employees would be forced to fork over a “percentage of payroll towards the cost of the national plan.”
o To summarize: The omnipotence of the U.S. Government combined with the angelic magnanimity of Sir Obama will affectively save our tanking healthcare system.
- The Problems:
o Supply and Demand my friends….with the 47 million uninsured Americans all of the sudden covered by Obama’s public plan, the demand for healthcare would absolutely skyrocket. Armed with their new nationalized insurance plans, millions of Americans demanding care would flood medical facilities in droves. Clinics and doctor’s offices would start to look like today’s emergency rooms. Of course, the 3 hour wait and tension headache are free of charge. But as the number of patients increases, the supply of doctors, nurses, hospitals and clinics won’t be able to keep up. In fact, as Dick Morris points out in his newest book Fleeced, “the cost controls that Obama will impose will probably limit the income of doctors,” which will directly decrease the number of young Americans who consider entering the medical field. And here’s the real kicker…as we certainly have learned with the recent energy crisis, when demand surpasses supply, PRICES WILL GO UP. Yes, that’s right, prices will go up. Where’s the solution there?
o Cart Before the Horse….it’s important to remember Obama’s proposed order of action in slaying the healthcare giant: expand coverage first, cut costs second. But wait, didn’t we just decide that Obama’s expanded coverage will actually boost costs? And wouldn’t higher prices make it much harder to cut costs? The answer, of course, is yes and yes. By expanding coverage before cutting costs, Obama effectively would dig himself into a hole of monumental proportions. The high prices of today, compounded by the high prices that result from the backfiring of a nationalized plan, would pave the way for some pretty radical cost cutting measures. And once again, Dick Morris comes through with what is, frighteningly enough, the most reasonable theory: rationing. Essentially what this would provide for are federal bureaucrats who would analyze any medical procedure you might require for cost-benefit, and then have the power to veto that procedure if deemed necessary. Yes, that’s right, bureaucrats doling out medical procedures. It happens in Europe and Canada (where they follow a very Obamaesque socialized system, much to their own detriment) and it could certainly happen in America under Obama’s nationalized plan.
o What about the illegals?....on his website, Obama cites the statistic that there are 47 million Americans who are currently uninsured. What Obama does not note is that about 10 million of those Americans are in fact illegal aliens. Under his heroic national healthcare crusade to insure “all Americans,” Obama would make it far too possible for you, a law-abiding and tax-paying American, to wait behind a long line of illegal aliens for a medical procedure you need.
o A closer look at the 47 million….Obama nobly touts the plight of the 47 million uninsured Americans as the impetus for his nationalized healthcare reform. In tones that smack of the welfare state, Obama seeks to throw these people on the back of Uncle Sam and provide for each and every of their healthcare needs. But just who exactly are these people? Lets take a look:
- 10 million illegal aliens (as noted in above point)
- 15 million who are eligible for Medicaid but don’t bother to apply (yes,that’s right, 1/3 of uninsured Americans could easily be insured if they would just apply)
- 15 million adults whose children are eligible for free insurance
- 10 million childless adults
o For all you visual learners….if you want a good picture of what an Obama-inspired healthcare plan would look like, take a jog across the pond, jump on one of those nice double-decker buses, and stop by St. Thomas’s Hospital in London. Talk to a doctor there (as I actually have) and see what he has to say about socialized healthcare. Then come back to the states and vote McCain.
o This is certainly change that I can not and will not believe in.
o The junior senator from Illinois proposes a “new national health plan” offered to all Americans, including the 47 million who are currently uninsured. This brand spanking new public healthcare plan would offer guaranteed eligibility, comprehensive benefits (similar to those given to U.S. Congressman), affordable premiums, and federal subsidies for families who don’t qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still require financial assistance. Everyone, and I mean everyone (see illegal immigrant comments below), will be insured.
o Now for those of you who aren’t exactly into the whole nationalized, government-controlled healthcare idea, Obama still provides you with the option of purchasing your own private insurance plan. To do this, Obama would create the “National Health Insurance Exchange,” a so-called “watchdog group” that would spearhead the effort to reform the private insurance market. How would the Insurance Exchange go about reforming private insurance? Well through increased government regulation of course! Obama’s Insurance Exchange would create “rules and standards” so that private insurance plans are suitably fair, affordable, and accessible. Under the watchful eye of the Exchange, insurance plans would be mandated to be “at least as generous as the new public plan,” and their differences would be made accessible to the masses.
o Now for those of you just starving for even more good old fashioned government control of the private sector, Obama would give you yet another spoon-full. Obama strongly proposes that any employer seen as not making a “meaningful contribution” to the cost of health coverage for employees would be forced to fork over a “percentage of payroll towards the cost of the national plan.”
o To summarize: The omnipotence of the U.S. Government combined with the angelic magnanimity of Sir Obama will affectively save our tanking healthcare system.
- The Problems:
o Supply and Demand my friends….with the 47 million uninsured Americans all of the sudden covered by Obama’s public plan, the demand for healthcare would absolutely skyrocket. Armed with their new nationalized insurance plans, millions of Americans demanding care would flood medical facilities in droves. Clinics and doctor’s offices would start to look like today’s emergency rooms. Of course, the 3 hour wait and tension headache are free of charge. But as the number of patients increases, the supply of doctors, nurses, hospitals and clinics won’t be able to keep up. In fact, as Dick Morris points out in his newest book Fleeced, “the cost controls that Obama will impose will probably limit the income of doctors,” which will directly decrease the number of young Americans who consider entering the medical field. And here’s the real kicker…as we certainly have learned with the recent energy crisis, when demand surpasses supply, PRICES WILL GO UP. Yes, that’s right, prices will go up. Where’s the solution there?
o Cart Before the Horse….it’s important to remember Obama’s proposed order of action in slaying the healthcare giant: expand coverage first, cut costs second. But wait, didn’t we just decide that Obama’s expanded coverage will actually boost costs? And wouldn’t higher prices make it much harder to cut costs? The answer, of course, is yes and yes. By expanding coverage before cutting costs, Obama effectively would dig himself into a hole of monumental proportions. The high prices of today, compounded by the high prices that result from the backfiring of a nationalized plan, would pave the way for some pretty radical cost cutting measures. And once again, Dick Morris comes through with what is, frighteningly enough, the most reasonable theory: rationing. Essentially what this would provide for are federal bureaucrats who would analyze any medical procedure you might require for cost-benefit, and then have the power to veto that procedure if deemed necessary. Yes, that’s right, bureaucrats doling out medical procedures. It happens in Europe and Canada (where they follow a very Obamaesque socialized system, much to their own detriment) and it could certainly happen in America under Obama’s nationalized plan.
o What about the illegals?....on his website, Obama cites the statistic that there are 47 million Americans who are currently uninsured. What Obama does not note is that about 10 million of those Americans are in fact illegal aliens. Under his heroic national healthcare crusade to insure “all Americans,” Obama would make it far too possible for you, a law-abiding and tax-paying American, to wait behind a long line of illegal aliens for a medical procedure you need.
o A closer look at the 47 million….Obama nobly touts the plight of the 47 million uninsured Americans as the impetus for his nationalized healthcare reform. In tones that smack of the welfare state, Obama seeks to throw these people on the back of Uncle Sam and provide for each and every of their healthcare needs. But just who exactly are these people? Lets take a look:
- 10 million illegal aliens (as noted in above point)
- 15 million who are eligible for Medicaid but don’t bother to apply (yes,that’s right, 1/3 of uninsured Americans could easily be insured if they would just apply)
- 15 million adults whose children are eligible for free insurance
- 10 million childless adults
o For all you visual learners….if you want a good picture of what an Obama-inspired healthcare plan would look like, take a jog across the pond, jump on one of those nice double-decker buses, and stop by St. Thomas’s Hospital in London. Talk to a doctor there (as I actually have) and see what he has to say about socialized healthcare. Then come back to the states and vote McCain.
o This is certainly change that I can not and will not believe in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)