Monday, March 22, 2010


It was about, and only about, winning.

They won.

Sunday, March 21, 2010 will go down as the day President Barack H. Obama and his willing accomplices in congress and the MainStream Media made a fundamental change in America.

Far from representing the people, congress passed a health care reform bill that is a blow to freedom and a financial albatross around the necks of our yet-to-be-born posterity.

The cost of this legislation, conservatively, will be $940 billion. Since we do not have that kind of money and will have to borrow it, it will also add to the staggering national debt, which will now be over $12 trillion!

Who will ever know the extent of bribery and corruption, payoffs and promises thereof that allowed this travesty to take place?

The power of the federal government over our lives has been geometrically expanded and is the antithesis of what our forefathers intended for this Great Experiment.

The door has been opened for the further degradation of the free market, which the socialists among us have decried as responsible for our current economic woes, the Community Reinvestment Act notwithstanding.

It is not the greed of large corporations that has brought us here (although their willing participation must not be discounted), it is, rather, the general culture of entitlement and individual corruption in high places.

Opposing “free” health care will very difficult for conservative Republicans in November, and it is doubtful whether there are enough of them with the back bone for it.

All of this, and we have not yet been told the inevitable costs of shipping and handling for this boondoggle.

President BO's change has begun in earnest.


Tom said...

How is it that Congress was not "representing the people", when roughly half of Americans supported the legislation? Are you simply upset because they didn't represent your half?

I'm curious how HCR degrades the "free market". Is the "free market" defined by the participation of very large insurance companies? The insurance companies are still involved, of course.. and unfortunately.

Joe said...

Tom: My half is the only half that counts. Besides "roughly" depends on which side you're on. Had it been the other way, you would hardly have considered it "roughly."

62% of Americans, according to Gallop, did not approve this bill in its present form.

For future reference, let's remember that 62% constitutes "roughly," OK?

Leticia said...

Welcome to socialist America. The place where dreams are dashed, babies are murdered, the elderly will be ignored until they die, euthanasia is lawful, and homosexuals have all the rights.

America, what a place!

Joe said...

Leticia: It ain't our grandparents' America.

Tom said...

Hey Joe.. it's not that I think you're lying about the percentage or anything.. just that you didn't link it.. so I looked it up.. and it turns out you're (not lying but) completely wrong.

This is the latest Gallup poll;

March 9, 2010
In U.S., 45% Favor, 48% Oppose Obama Healthcare Plan

In the future, can we agree that 45-48 (which is within polling margin of error) constitutes "roughly". Okay?

As an aside.. and a hint. I actually check stuff that people make claims about.

Krystal said...


3/19-22 40% support 58% oppose

3/16-17 35% support 55% oppose

3/10-15 45% support 54% oppose

3/10-14 38% support 48% oppose

There is an average difference of 14.25 points in the opposed column.

In the future, can we agree that 14.5 points is not within polling margin of error and therefore constitutes that the majority of Americans did not want this passed? Okay?

Krystal said...

Oh, and Tom, as an aside and a hint, I was a professional researcher at one time and I actually check stuff that people make claims about as well.

Joe said...

Tom: I used an older poll.

Not all polls are created equal…that is to say, they measure different aspects of an issue, and different questions as well.

Here are more current numbers from Gallup:

Would you advise your representative in Congress to vote for or against a healthcare reform bill similar to the one proposed by President Obama. Results: 48% vote against; 45% vote for. 7% No opinion (Gallup-March 4-7, 2010)

Here’s another: Thinking about the health care bill currently being cnsidered by Congress, do you think if it is passed into law it will make things better…or make things worse…? You and your family: 28% make things better 37% make things worse. The U.S. as a whole: 39% make things better; 44% make things worse.(Gallup-March 17, 2010)

The principle remains the same in both instances: more Americans opposed the bill than supported it.

Tom said...

Krystal, you didn't link anything either.. so I went looking for the CNN polling for 3/19. The entire results can be read here.

Using Joe's method of evaluating the actual questions asked, take a look at the most relevant question.

(IF OPPOSE) Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?
39 % Favor (from previous question)
43% Oppose, too liberal
13% Oppose, not liberal enough

Notice, 43% oppose.. and your quoting of "58% oppose" is misleading because it includes the 13% of Americans who actually wanted a good bill. I'm in that 13%. If you add the 13% to the 39% approving, that's 52% in favor of health care reform, and 43% opposed.

Can you explain to me why a "professional researcher" would include 13% of the Liberal's who don't think the bill goes far enough as if they are included in the poplulation that are opposed to health care reform? Is that really how a "professional" would do it?

We can do this all day long if you want. You can keep making up numbera about things, using Joe's method of old polls (which again he does not link), or Krystal's method of cherry picking the results in order to intentionally mislead.. or.. we can agree that it was a pretty evenly divided electorate.

And again.. your half lost.

Joe said...

Tom: Hey! I gave you the URLs...I couldn't make the link work!

These polls are fresh.

If I were making the opposite point, you would still argue with me, because that's all you're about. Obviously facts don't sway you one way or the other.

"If you add the 13% to the 39% approving, that's 52% in favor of health care reform, and 43% opposed."

Nobody said they were against health care reform. The polls I sited had to do with the plans President BO and Congress were pushing.

Those plans were opposed by the majority of Americans.

Of which you were seemingly one.

You don't want this one, but you want something, so you put yourself on the side of wanting this one!

That's pretty obtuse.

The Mad Jewess said...

I'm sorry but I have no tolerance for idiots and communists. I'm old school, I have morals and believe in God and freedom. The problem is people that think anything goes except what's right

The Mad Jewess said...

As for Tom:
Were you born stupid, or did you go to college to get that way?

Tom said...

Was I born stupid? Awesome... I am a Communist, have no morals, and hate freedome. That's so amazing, it's hard to describe.

Oh.. I know what that reminds me of.. remember during one of McCain's campaign speeches, he gave to the mic to the old lady who sputtered out that Obama is a Muslim? Ya.. that's what I'm thinking right now.

Please do englighten me with a demonstration how one thing I've said is not absolutely true.

Tapline said...

Joe, Love your title...One thing I haven't heard during this whole selling of the individual to the masses is where are all the jobs created by all that money poured into this economy and not creating Jobs????the unemployment numbers continue to climb..... more people without health coverage....."no!!!!hit me that couldn't have been a plan!!!! Just talking to myself.....stay well....

lisa said...

According to the liar in chief 32 million who do not have health insurance will in 4 years!
Remember Obama was saying 14,000 people were losing their health insurance everyday so if I calculate this correctly 14,000 X 365=5,110,000 which bring us up to about 37 million give or take(probably give)then when amnesty is granted which is probably safe to say 20 million but probably more by the time they send for their families so let's say 30 million to be safe which now brings us up to 60 million give or take(I say give) which is about 1/3 or more of the population.
So many of us will be supporting about 1/3 or more of the rest and who knows how many more people in the private sector will be laying off more workers at the rate these pimps in congress are going.
But we should all be happy that 32 million people who couldn't get health insurance will now be able to in 4 years.
Sounds sustainable to me. Any other takers?

JMK said...

54% (opposed) to 41% (in favor) isn't "nearly 50/50....not even close.

81% believe it will cost more than projected and 57% believe it will harm the economy....those folks are right on both counts.

And I support a single PUBLIC OPTION.

Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid and roll everyone into a one public option that is strictly rationed and tightly restricted public option that would allow up to, say, 4 to6 Dr. visits per year (max) and a maximum of say, $10,000 in medical expenses in any given calendar year, with no accumulation of either visits or dollars to any subseqent years.

This public option would have to come with a very strong enforcement arm to root out fraud, forwarding suspected fraud cases to the FBI and the IRS for federal criminal civil prosecutions and rigid budget oversight.

The ONLY problem Americans have with health care is the expense.

To rein in costs there is ONLY one possible solution - STOP giving away too much expensive care for free to those who don't pay in.

The above single public option would save HUGE on health care costs by rationing care. Those willing and able to buy the "gap insurance" necessary to avoid such rationing and the other restrictions of the bare-bones public option would be able to purchase that from private insurers free to compete across all state lines.

This would be a GREAT boon to our private industries and local Municipalities both now overburdened by health care costs.

The key is reining in costs and the above plan is the only way to effectively do that.

In England's, as with many other government-managed health care systems stints are not made available to people over 59 years of age, BUT that is, of course, NOT a "hard and fast" rule.

People who are very valuable citizens (and inanely enough, that includes many easily replaceable public officials) are able to circumvent that.

Going with those willing and able to pay the premiums for the needed gap insurance seems a much better way to go.

The public issue ALWAYS comes down to too few dollars chasing too few resources to provide for far too many "needs."

shoprat said...

The way to defeat it is to remind people that it isn't free.

selahV said...

Joe, the pay czar, Feinberg just slashed exec salaries by another 15%, today. It's so funny for the Dems to think they will not at some time or another have to live with less money as Obama sets up his czars.

Congress indeed was not "representing the people". The people did not want this. The vast majority of people did not want this kind of reform. They did not want the government taking over their lives. And that is what this first step is all about. I've said it several times, but it bears repeating. People voted for Obama to go to Washington to change it, that was the kind of change they voted for. They did not vote for him to change the constitution and ignore the will of the people and trample on the rights of Americans like his buddy Bill Ayers trampled on the American flag.

This is not over, it's just begun. I am grateful for the gasoline the dems just tossed on the fire. It fuels us even more.

The liberals have won a battle, but they lost the war on public opinion. If they think they'll go home to a group of whooped puppies and face their constituents as a hero in Washington, they are going to be in for another rude awakening.

selahV said...

Shoprat, right on! The democrats pushed their liberal garbage upon the people saying they were going to punish those big bad profiteering insurance companies.

And let's's the American public and American businesses that will be fined to pay for what those mean old insurance companies are doing to Americans.

And. oh yeah. It's every single solitary person who draws a paycheck whose medicare taxes are going up and every single solitary person on medicare who are going to lose benefits. But we're gonna show those big old bad insurance companies, aren't we?

And if a person works hard and manages to reach the American dream, they will be punished for having done so. And if a person like me puts away a tiny nest egg to try and make money to offset the 10,000-dollar policy it costs to pay for 50% of my medical expenses I have to meet a 7,000-dollar deductible first. And if my investment manages to make a profit, I have to pay a tax on anything I manage to eek out of this lousy economy. But if I lose any money for investing in this lousy economy, the government will give me NOTHING.

We're just beginning to learn what the bill is going to take away before it gives out anything.
This bill is a joke! And the joke is on Americans who believe it is going to help them without them paying a huge price--except for those folks who refuse to work and come here illegally and sign up for this monstrosity.

Tom's Place said...

Actually, I'm waiting for the taxes to hit, and then the opposition to "free" healthcare will hit new heights...

JMK said...

"Actually, I'm waiting for the taxes to hit, and then the opposition to "free" healthcare will hit new heights..." (Tom's Place)

The only flaw with that is that currently the top 10% of income earners pauy over 71% of all income taxes in the U.S. (they earn appx 44% of all aggregate annual income).

The ironic thing is that it's the bottom 80% of Americans who are comparatively "under-taxed," and a LOT of the proposed levies would hit those the current administration promised it wouldn't - those 95% of Americans earning under $200,000/year.

No, the tax bill for Medicare and Medicaid haven't hurt those two programs, but their fiscal mismanagement has - BOTH are so insolvent they literally can't be bailed out. They exist on unfunded and unfundable IOUs.

But the poor administration of services and fiscal mismanagement of those programs effects only a small portion of America - the poor number appx 12% of the population, the elderly, perhaps another 12%.

THIS program's poor care and poorer financial mismanagement will impact virtually EVERYONE. That has more of a chance of increasing the 67% of those polled by Newsweek who claim to be angry over this Bill than anything else.

Anonymous said...

Obama is a disgrace to America and the Constitution. He hates America, Capitalism and all it stands for. Nothing Obama does has to do with the Constitution - he hates the Constitution and has even said it is simply a document of negative liberties, telling what the government can’t do for you, rather than what the government SHOULD do for you

Joe said...

TMJ: I've wondered the same thing about old Tom. He purports to be wise, but does his "best" work dodging the main points.

Tapline: It's a throwback to President BO's response to criticism after the Novemeber election. It represents Congress' attitude.

lisa: Facts and figures don't matter to liberals. They routinely pick numbers out of the air.

JMK: You know, you and I don't agree on everything (much, but not all...I don't even agree with myself about everything), but you are a perfect example of a reasoned approach to discussion and how to properly make a point. Thanks.

shoprat: Yeah, but many people thing it IS free. I wonder where they think government gets its money?

selahV: This health care stuff is a joke, but a very serious one.

Tom's Place: Taxes first, services 4 years later.

Through My Eyes: Thanks for the visit! You are so very right!

Jeff said...

Hay Joe, you will always have people who believe that socialism is the answer, like Tom, but one day they will awaken to find they are its prisoner.

Anonymous said...

Obama showed his true colors. So much for any pretense that he is a pragmatic centrist.

Krystal said...

Tom, My stats came from, not that it would have been difficult to find any of them on your own since I listed who ran them. Let's see ... the CNN poll would could be found at CNN, of all places. The FOX poll could be found at FOX. The Kaiser poll could be found at Kaiser. The NBC poll could be found at NBC. Seriously, I didn't need a link to Gallop to find a "Gallop Poll".

Then again, I'm not a liberal, so I'm fully capable of thinking for myself and have grown way past the need of everything HANDED to me and being spoon fed.

And as one of those 32,000,000 without insurance, I'd like to know where all the liberal compassion is! After all, aren't 120 people dieing every day because they don't have health insurance?! That's 175,201 before health care is made available! I might be one of them! Where would my husband and six children be THEN?!

Stupid, unfeeling, non-compassionate liberals who won't give me free insurance now ... YOU'RE ALL HEARTLESS JERKS!!!

Krystal said...

Mad Jewess, Your comment "Were you born stupid, or did you go to college to get that way?" was added to my "Quotable Quotes" post I just put up. You had me cracking up!!! I hope you don't mind my using on other people sometimes!!

Mark said...

Joe, I am less concerned with the raising of more taxes to pay for this bill than I am with the "penalty" for not buying health insurance?

What if I can't afford their insurance? Do I still have to pay the fines? What if I can't afford them? Do I go to jail?

Oh, right, there will be subsidies paid so we can all afford the insurance. Will we have to only pay for insurance with these subsidies? Or will we be able to use them to feed our families?
If we don't use our subsidy money to pay for insurance will we be fined or go to jail?

Sometimes getting something to eat or paying one's rent is more pressing a problem than buying health insurance, isn't it?

And what about forcing me to pay for something I don't want? Where does the Constitution say I have to do that?

I have more questions but not enough time to ask them. Besides, I already know the answers and they aren't pretty.

Krystal said...

Mark, that's been a concern of ours as well. And you know that the people who will be penalized the most will be the ones who live without debt. They'll ask your income, number of dependants, and rent/mortgage payment to determine who needs help. People like my husband and I who live without debt will be told that we can afford insurance because we live within our means. Those people who live their lives revolved around debt (mortgage, car loans, credit cards) will simply be enabled with a federal check.

In essence, we will be punished for paying our home and vehicles off and not spending money we don't have.

The big farce here is that only the rich are going to get screwed. Not true, the middle class who work hard to get ahead are going to get worked over as well.

Mark said...

Something else I'm concerned about: Pre-existing conditions. If insurance companies have to insure people with pre-existing conditions, they will have to raise their premiums drastically. When the premiums have gone completely out of sight, they will have no choice but to file bankruptcy and go out of business. Then, Obama can step in and take over the health insurance industry.

After the insurance companies go, the next step is forcing small businesses to provide health care coverage through the Federal Government. Naturally, the more the small business have to pay, the less they can earn, so they will go belly-up, too. Then, Obama can step in and take over that industry.

Before long, Obama owns everything, and we have a Communist country. That's his plan. That's his intention.

Supreme Commander of the world.

Can he be stopped?

Joe said...

Jeff: Will they awaken?

Silverfiddle: Forget the procedure, forget the Constitution: Obamacare is about his legacy, not lawfulness.

Krystal: Very well said!

Mark: "I am less concerned with the raising of more taxes to pay for this bill than I am with the "penalty" for not buying health insurance." This is the most insidious part of the mess!

Anybody who has followed my blog for any length of time knows I agree with you that President BO would like nothing better than to rule the world.

Joe said...

Mark: Oh, and like other despots before him, he really thinks he could pull it off.

Krystal said...

Mark, "can he be stopped?" I guess we could shoot him, but then he'd become a martyr.
Even worse.

Joe, remember that song by Tears for Fears? Sing with me, "Everybody wants to rule the world ..."

JMK said...

"What if I can't afford their insurance? Do I still have to pay the fines? What if I can't afford them? Do I go to jail?" (Mark)

Depends on your income level. Subsidies will help some low income Americans, but not all.

“...the health care bill presented in the Senate by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) would make some middle-class American families pay what amounts to a $15,200 annual federally-mandated insurance fee, according to facts revealed in analyses published by the Congressional Budget Office.

“A family of four—two parents and two children—earning $88,200 would be at 400 percent of the poverty level this year, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A family of four earning $88,201, therefore, would not be eligible for a federal subsidy to buy insurance under the Senate health-care bill. If the mother and father in such a family could not get employer-based health insurance—because their employers decided not to buy their workers insurance—the family would be required by law to purchase a policy with its own money that would cost an estimated $15,200 per year, according to the CBO.”

In that case the answer to your questions are;
1) Reorder your priorities

2) YES

3) It's the IRS, you have to "afford it"

4) YES

JMK said...

"Something else I'm concerned about: Pre-existing conditions. If insurance companies have to insure people with pre-existing conditions, they will have to raise their premiums drastically. When the premiums have gone completely out of sight, they will have no choice but to file bankruptcy and go out of business. Then, Obama can step in and take over the health insurance industry." (Mark)
It doesn't appear that the Bill caps premiums.

In fact one part of the Bill requires Insurers to use 80% of their proceeds on health-care. Ironically enough, the profit margin in that industry averages a whopping 4%! So they now put 96% of their proceeds into health-care.

JMK said...

Just to be clear, the questions I was referring to were these;

(1) "What if I can't afford their insurance?"

(2) "Do I still have to pay the fines?"

(3) "What if I can't afford them?"

(4) "Do I go to jail?" (Mark)

To which the answers are;

1) Reorder your priorities

2) YES

3) It's the IRS, you have to "afford it"

4) YES