By Jerry McConnell
I often get pressured by liberal supporting goons who send emails tearing down everything I write about the corrupt and decidedly anti-American, Constitution-destroying, part of our government.
They are, without doubt, words that prove America is no longer the country that was created to provide rule that was embedded in Constitutional law . This current government majority has no concept of the rule of law that was established 234 years ago by our Christian founders who escaped from tyranny in European monarch-ruled countries.
Hordes of strong-armed and weapons-armed undesirables hired by money-hungry and corrupt labor union bosses will soon deliver our once proud country to the horribly corrupt and unbelievably incompetent third world officials of the United Nations. George Soros will be ecstatic when this transformation of a powerful sovereign nation is reduced to multitudes of slaves, robbed of all their earnings and property, dying a slow death.
My greatest desire is to possibly still be around when the Muslims detach Soros from his billions and show him what happens when you don’t convert to their murderous religious dictates.
But for the moment, Obama’s other hired thugs have chosen to harass me via email for speaking the truth about his illegal and country destroying collection of thieves, tax cheats, and liars aided and abetted by the liberal Democratic leadership in our Congress. Pardon my use of an oxymoron by referring to “liberal Democratic” leadership.
We all know that liberal, as one political party uses it, translates into “anything goes” as long as they have absolute control over your life from cradle to grave.
On the other hand, Democratic or democracy is supposed to mean absolute rule by the people; a far cry from the ‘behind closed doors by a handful of despots’ rule that we see being exercised not only by our Congress but by the president and his gaggle of henchmen and henchwomen Administration.
So, ‘liberal Democratic’ is a perfect example of the oxymoronic government we see in America today. In fact, our highest leadership is becoming closer by the day to an absolute dictatorship.
Transparency means behind-closed-doors decision making to Obama and his oxymoronic liberal Democratic Congress, with few or preferably no members of the Republican Party present.
However, there are signs that new waves of change, this time really for the better, are beginning to take over. After earlier victories in Virginia and New Jersey, we have witnessed the just finished contest for the Senate seat in Massachusetts, long in liberal Democrat hands being won by a strong conservative at great odds.
The stunned Democrats are scrambling to find out what happened to this contest that just a mere few months ago was safely predicted to be an impossible task for a newcomer to politics named Scott Brown. But conquer it he did, and the surprised pundits and strategists of the Democratic Party are blaming it on anything but the actual cause of their candidate blowing a huge lead in a short period of time.
The people had been growing restless with the reckless programs of the liberals that had plunged us into a state tremendous debt and the promise of huge tax increases and wealth redistribution to mostly illegal aliens and non-producing residents.
Time.com also presented their arguments on what went wrong, curiously also choosing five areas, not ONE of which touched on the subject of forced Socialism for the U. S.
All of which makes me wonder if the liberal Democrats are so power hungry that they are brain-dead to the inevitability of what they are striving to accomplish. Socialism or Marxism, there’s not too much different in either, relying primarily in redistribution of wealth by seizing money earned fairly through mostly lifetimes of hard work and productive employment benefitting our country, and handing it off to those who are undeserving of it.
Socialism is not generally regarded as one of the front-runner issues like health care reform, cap and trade, public debt, labor union transgressions; deficits or huge taxes; but it is the underlying most discomforting thought in people’s minds that tends to initiate aggressive corrective actions.
It has taken less than one year for the bulk of this country’s citizens to realize what the liberals themselves have not yet recognized; that they are being robbed of their private wealth and their property will be next.
Conservatives are on a roll and they want their country back to the ideals of our founding fathers along with the strong Constitution that was forged 234 years ago.
It will happen November 02, 2010.
1.21.2010
1.13.2010
10 reasons
10 Reasons Why Shaheen, Shea-Porter and Hodes Should Reconsider Their Health Care Votes
By Jeb Bradley
With Senate passage of “HarryCare” and the previous House passage of “PelosiCare” the stage is set for closed door negotiations between select House and Senate leaders on a unified single bill. What this legislation ultimately looks like is anyone’s guess. Two things are almost certain however: the public will be shut out of the process; and the highway robbery committed by select senators in exchange for their votes will get worse.
Here are 10 compelling reasons why Senator Shaheen, Congresswoman Shea-Porter and Congressman Hodes should reconsider their votes on this impending healthcare fiasco.
1. The deficit will grow not shrink as supporters claim. The Senate legislation is structured so that tax hikes are immediate, but coverage subsidies don’t kick in until 2014 hiding the true cost of the legislation. Further spending on items such as reimbursement rate increases for doctors were deleted to mask the legislation’s true cost. Staffers have indicated the true cost of the legislation will be $2.5 trillion over 10 years once coverage mandates begin, not $841 billion that supporters cite. Deficit neutrality is being manufactured through cynical accounting gimmicks. Remember also that Medicare’s unfunded future liability is $37 Trillion.
2. The cost of health care for the middle class not qualifying for subsidies will go up according to the Center for Medicaid and Medicare and the Congressional Budget Office. This is a far cry from President Obama’s pledge that health insurance costs would decrease by $2500 for a typical family.
3. At a time when businesses everywhere are struggling to keep their doors open, they don’t need more government imposed costs and bureaucracy. The Senate legislation imposes a $750 penalty on most businesses if they don’t provide government approved insurance.
4. Individuals will be forced to purchase insurance approved by government bureaucrats or pay a penalty of 2% of income or $2250 per family, whichever is greater--- blatantly unconstitutional. Young healthy Americans may make a rational decision to pay the penalty and wait until they become ill to purchase insurance because it can’t be denied. And if they choose not to pay the penalty – the House legislation could impose jail sentences!
5. The Senate like the House would impose punishing new taxes. The Senate array of taxes include a hike in the Medicare payroll tax for salaries above $200,000, a tax on higher value insurance policies which will affect middle class NH citizens due to our high insurance costs, a new tax on drug manufacturers, an industry wide tax on health insurers which would be passed along to consumers, a tax on medical device manufacturers, higher thresholds before individuals could deduct medical expenses, and even a tax on indoor tanning facilities. Is this any way to create American jobs during a recession?
6. The Senate and House cut Medicare for Seniors. These cuts specifically target the popular and effective Medicare Advantage which offers more comprehensive care for seniors, as well as better preventative care and disease management services.
7. Both the Senate and House predict that millions more Americans will be insured – but nearly half of the newly insured, will be eligible for Medicaid – a government entitlement for low-income Americans. However, this provision will be an unfunded mandate for states – at least those that did not receive special deals to buy the votes of wavering senators. Former Commissioner John Stephen has estimated this provision will cost New Hampshire’s hard pressed taxpayers $1.2 billion over ten years.
8. Government intrusion into health care decisions will be overwhelming. Insurers will face new mandates. Federal bureaucrats will determine which plans meet minimum standards. The Senate creates a Medicare Advisory Board to make funding decisions based on cost - the beginning of health care rationing. The House version contains the so-called public option, an innocuous sounding name for government-run health care. The Senate would require states to create Health Benefit Exchanges and the federal Office of Personnel Management must insure two plans are offered through each exchange, thus creating a new federal bureaucracy likely to morph into “Fannie Med”.
9. The spectacle of vote-buying to obtain the necessary 60 Senate votes to move the legislation forward is disgraceful. While no political party can claim to be angels when passing comprehensive legislation, Harry Reid’s willingness to buy the necessary votes is unrivaled. Free new Medicaid for Nebraska, heightened Medicaid subsidies for Louisiana, a special Medicare deal for Florida, and even a $100 million hospital for embattled Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Democrats can call this “Washington Compromise”, but if it happened on Wall Street these same Democrats would lambast the behavior as criminal, would subpoena the executives to testify before Congress and demand their resignations.
10. This legislation does nothing to lower the cost of health care – the big problem that Americans actually face. No tort reform, no changing the tax code to give individuals more opportunities to control their health care, no opportunities for businesses or individuals to purchase lower costs health insurance in national markets.
During the last election, Shaheen, Shea-Porter and Hodes proclaimed their independence from Washington and party bosses. They said they represent New Hampshire in Washington and not visa-versa. Now is their time to shine – to say enough is enough with this health care legislation debacle. They need to start over and work in a bi-partisan fashion to solve the very real health care problems Americans confront -- but which this legislation exacerbates.
By Jeb Bradley
With Senate passage of “HarryCare” and the previous House passage of “PelosiCare” the stage is set for closed door negotiations between select House and Senate leaders on a unified single bill. What this legislation ultimately looks like is anyone’s guess. Two things are almost certain however: the public will be shut out of the process; and the highway robbery committed by select senators in exchange for their votes will get worse.
Here are 10 compelling reasons why Senator Shaheen, Congresswoman Shea-Porter and Congressman Hodes should reconsider their votes on this impending healthcare fiasco.
1. The deficit will grow not shrink as supporters claim. The Senate legislation is structured so that tax hikes are immediate, but coverage subsidies don’t kick in until 2014 hiding the true cost of the legislation. Further spending on items such as reimbursement rate increases for doctors were deleted to mask the legislation’s true cost. Staffers have indicated the true cost of the legislation will be $2.5 trillion over 10 years once coverage mandates begin, not $841 billion that supporters cite. Deficit neutrality is being manufactured through cynical accounting gimmicks. Remember also that Medicare’s unfunded future liability is $37 Trillion.
2. The cost of health care for the middle class not qualifying for subsidies will go up according to the Center for Medicaid and Medicare and the Congressional Budget Office. This is a far cry from President Obama’s pledge that health insurance costs would decrease by $2500 for a typical family.
3. At a time when businesses everywhere are struggling to keep their doors open, they don’t need more government imposed costs and bureaucracy. The Senate legislation imposes a $750 penalty on most businesses if they don’t provide government approved insurance.
4. Individuals will be forced to purchase insurance approved by government bureaucrats or pay a penalty of 2% of income or $2250 per family, whichever is greater--- blatantly unconstitutional. Young healthy Americans may make a rational decision to pay the penalty and wait until they become ill to purchase insurance because it can’t be denied. And if they choose not to pay the penalty – the House legislation could impose jail sentences!
5. The Senate like the House would impose punishing new taxes. The Senate array of taxes include a hike in the Medicare payroll tax for salaries above $200,000, a tax on higher value insurance policies which will affect middle class NH citizens due to our high insurance costs, a new tax on drug manufacturers, an industry wide tax on health insurers which would be passed along to consumers, a tax on medical device manufacturers, higher thresholds before individuals could deduct medical expenses, and even a tax on indoor tanning facilities. Is this any way to create American jobs during a recession?
6. The Senate and House cut Medicare for Seniors. These cuts specifically target the popular and effective Medicare Advantage which offers more comprehensive care for seniors, as well as better preventative care and disease management services.
7. Both the Senate and House predict that millions more Americans will be insured – but nearly half of the newly insured, will be eligible for Medicaid – a government entitlement for low-income Americans. However, this provision will be an unfunded mandate for states – at least those that did not receive special deals to buy the votes of wavering senators. Former Commissioner John Stephen has estimated this provision will cost New Hampshire’s hard pressed taxpayers $1.2 billion over ten years.
8. Government intrusion into health care decisions will be overwhelming. Insurers will face new mandates. Federal bureaucrats will determine which plans meet minimum standards. The Senate creates a Medicare Advisory Board to make funding decisions based on cost - the beginning of health care rationing. The House version contains the so-called public option, an innocuous sounding name for government-run health care. The Senate would require states to create Health Benefit Exchanges and the federal Office of Personnel Management must insure two plans are offered through each exchange, thus creating a new federal bureaucracy likely to morph into “Fannie Med”.
9. The spectacle of vote-buying to obtain the necessary 60 Senate votes to move the legislation forward is disgraceful. While no political party can claim to be angels when passing comprehensive legislation, Harry Reid’s willingness to buy the necessary votes is unrivaled. Free new Medicaid for Nebraska, heightened Medicaid subsidies for Louisiana, a special Medicare deal for Florida, and even a $100 million hospital for embattled Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Democrats can call this “Washington Compromise”, but if it happened on Wall Street these same Democrats would lambast the behavior as criminal, would subpoena the executives to testify before Congress and demand their resignations.
10. This legislation does nothing to lower the cost of health care – the big problem that Americans actually face. No tort reform, no changing the tax code to give individuals more opportunities to control their health care, no opportunities for businesses or individuals to purchase lower costs health insurance in national markets.
During the last election, Shaheen, Shea-Porter and Hodes proclaimed their independence from Washington and party bosses. They said they represent New Hampshire in Washington and not visa-versa. Now is their time to shine – to say enough is enough with this health care legislation debacle. They need to start over and work in a bi-partisan fashion to solve the very real health care problems Americans confront -- but which this legislation exacerbates.
12.28.2009
Bad Precedent, Impossible Standard
---by Micheal
At a recent board of selectmen meeting in my town, there was both a bad precedent set, and an impossible goal voiced. The Nanny State creeps into small town government quietly.
First: The Problem. A resident had his house broken into early one morning. There was no town police officer on duty at that time. Three of them were out on medical leave, so the shift was unfilled. The call was routed to the State Police who took 25 minutes to get there. There was much outrage.
Second: The Bad Precedent. Selectmen, reacting to the upset resident, decided to hire an additional police officer. Whether they have the authority to do so will remain to be sorted out. Town residents have balked repeatedly over the years at budget requests to add to town-paid staff. One selectman exposed a sentiment which is poison for democracy. "Such decisions should not be decided by the town," said one selectmen. The selectmen, being so much better qualified, should decide. Incredibly, the audience applauded such arrogance.
The selectmen exhibited that hallmark Nanny State attitude. Only government officials know best. The voting majority can and should be ignored...for their own good! Thus begins the smug elitist's reign. Democracy is nothing but a hollow ritual. The State knows best and should decide all.
Third: The Impossible Standard. The break-in victim told the selectmen than residents have "a fundamental right to feel safe." I was shocked at the thought. Now, I can sympathize with his feelings. I've been there twice before -- once with the house, and once with my car. The feeling of being vulnerable and violated are powerful. I know that. But his is a completely impossible expectation. No town, no state, can ever satisfy collective feelings. What if a resident doesn't feel safe unless there is a policeman assigned to their driveway 24/7? It cannot be the job of any town's government to satisfy residents' feelings.
The victim-resident and audience expose the dark flip side of the Nanny State. Residents demand that their government be responsible for everything -- including their feelings. This resident's beef is with the other voters in the town. THEY voted to add only one policemen to the budget, not two. He should be demanding of the voters, at the next town meeting, that THEY satisfy his feelings. How far do you suspect that demand will go? The voters can take on that task or remind him that our collective safety is a shared burden, not a service to be ordered from the front desk.
The Nanny State does not have to arrive in jackboots or paratroops. It can sneak in quietly as local officials assume a smarter-than-thou arrogance, and residents demand nanny service.
At a recent board of selectmen meeting in my town, there was both a bad precedent set, and an impossible goal voiced. The Nanny State creeps into small town government quietly.
First: The Problem. A resident had his house broken into early one morning. There was no town police officer on duty at that time. Three of them were out on medical leave, so the shift was unfilled. The call was routed to the State Police who took 25 minutes to get there. There was much outrage.
Second: The Bad Precedent. Selectmen, reacting to the upset resident, decided to hire an additional police officer. Whether they have the authority to do so will remain to be sorted out. Town residents have balked repeatedly over the years at budget requests to add to town-paid staff. One selectman exposed a sentiment which is poison for democracy. "Such decisions should not be decided by the town," said one selectmen. The selectmen, being so much better qualified, should decide. Incredibly, the audience applauded such arrogance.
The selectmen exhibited that hallmark Nanny State attitude. Only government officials know best. The voting majority can and should be ignored...for their own good! Thus begins the smug elitist's reign. Democracy is nothing but a hollow ritual. The State knows best and should decide all.
Third: The Impossible Standard. The break-in victim told the selectmen than residents have "a fundamental right to feel safe." I was shocked at the thought. Now, I can sympathize with his feelings. I've been there twice before -- once with the house, and once with my car. The feeling of being vulnerable and violated are powerful. I know that. But his is a completely impossible expectation. No town, no state, can ever satisfy collective feelings. What if a resident doesn't feel safe unless there is a policeman assigned to their driveway 24/7? It cannot be the job of any town's government to satisfy residents' feelings.
The victim-resident and audience expose the dark flip side of the Nanny State. Residents demand that their government be responsible for everything -- including their feelings. This resident's beef is with the other voters in the town. THEY voted to add only one policemen to the budget, not two. He should be demanding of the voters, at the next town meeting, that THEY satisfy his feelings. How far do you suspect that demand will go? The voters can take on that task or remind him that our collective safety is a shared burden, not a service to be ordered from the front desk.
The Nanny State does not have to arrive in jackboots or paratroops. It can sneak in quietly as local officials assume a smarter-than-thou arrogance, and residents demand nanny service.
12.23.2009
Health care reform; no back room deals!
By Kelly Ayotte
With health care costs growing at unsustainable rates, it is becoming increasingly difficult for small businesses to provide coverage for employees and more expensive for New Hampshire families to obtain affordable coverage. Congress needs to enact meaningful health care reforms that lower costs and improve quality.
Unfortunately, the $1.3 trillion, budget-busting bill passed by Rep. Paul Hodes and the House of Representative takes us in the wrong direction. Hodes' plan raises taxes on small businesses and makes it more difficult for them to provide health care for their employees; it cuts Medicare for seniors; and it paves the way for government rationing of health care.
The Senate Democrats drafted their 2,733-page bill in secret, cutting back-room deals and holding their vote at 1 a.m., the weekend before Christmas. Why all the secrecy? They know the American people will be outraged by their plan, which raises taxes by $518 billion, cuts Medicare by $470 billion, and Congressional Budget estimates show will increase overall expenditures on health care by $200 billion over the next 10 years.
Congress should take a time-out and start over. We need to agree that any reform should meet the following principles: You should be allowed to keep your current plan if you choose; families and small businesses should be able to design a plan that meets their individual needs; Washington bureaucrats should not come between patients and their doctors; and it should not increase taxes or drive up our deficit.
I believe there are some common-sense reforms Congress could enact that would bend the cost curve of health care.
We should start with medical malpractice reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits. In underserved areas, the threat of these lawsuits has forced doctors out of practice, and this is especially true for obstetricians. As I travel the state, many doctors have told me they feel forced to practice defensive medicine out of fear of frivolous lawsuits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that we could save $54 billion over the next 10 years if we enacted medical liability reform.
We should look more seriously at wellness programs that provide economic incentives for people to live healthy lives and use preventive care programs that have been implemented successfully by many large companies. Countless examples demonstrate that when wellness programs are used, insurance premiums go down and employees' health improves. Wellness is a win-win because we end up with lower health care costs and healthier families.
We need more transparency in our health care system. Health care is one of the only services we purchase where it is tremendously difficult to compare the prices of procedures and to obtain reliable information on quality. Consumers should have access to better information on the costs and quality of health care so they can make informed decisions about their own care.
We need to improve the efficiency and delivery of care with electronic medical records and better coordination of care. Patients who have chronic illnesses or diseases often have multiple doctors caring for them. Without coordinated care and physicians having access to complete information, a patient may receive duplicate tests or fail to receive the appropriate complementary treatment. Having electronic medical records and better coordination of care would save billions of dollars and provide patients with improved care.
We should allow small businesses to form a pool to purchase health insurance together. My husband, Joe, started a small business when he returned from serving in the Iraq War. Like other small business owners in New Hampshire and around the country, he has seen his health care costs explode over the last several years. By allowing small businesses to join together to purchase insurance, small businesses would have the same negotiating power as big companies. This can, and must, be done in a way that protects consumers. It is also inarguably true that when small businesses have lower health care costs, they are in a better position to create more jobs.
Finally, we should allow the purchase of insurance across state lines. This would create competition, driving down the cost of insurance. Additionally, it would give us more options to choose from when purchasing insurance.
There is no single silver bullet to solve our nation's health care problems. However, by using common sense, Congress can enact reforms drafted in the public's eye --instead of through back-room deals -- that reduce costs and provide us with better health care without raising taxes and driving up our deficit.
With health care costs growing at unsustainable rates, it is becoming increasingly difficult for small businesses to provide coverage for employees and more expensive for New Hampshire families to obtain affordable coverage. Congress needs to enact meaningful health care reforms that lower costs and improve quality.
Unfortunately, the $1.3 trillion, budget-busting bill passed by Rep. Paul Hodes and the House of Representative takes us in the wrong direction. Hodes' plan raises taxes on small businesses and makes it more difficult for them to provide health care for their employees; it cuts Medicare for seniors; and it paves the way for government rationing of health care.
The Senate Democrats drafted their 2,733-page bill in secret, cutting back-room deals and holding their vote at 1 a.m., the weekend before Christmas. Why all the secrecy? They know the American people will be outraged by their plan, which raises taxes by $518 billion, cuts Medicare by $470 billion, and Congressional Budget estimates show will increase overall expenditures on health care by $200 billion over the next 10 years.
Congress should take a time-out and start over. We need to agree that any reform should meet the following principles: You should be allowed to keep your current plan if you choose; families and small businesses should be able to design a plan that meets their individual needs; Washington bureaucrats should not come between patients and their doctors; and it should not increase taxes or drive up our deficit.
I believe there are some common-sense reforms Congress could enact that would bend the cost curve of health care.
We should start with medical malpractice reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits. In underserved areas, the threat of these lawsuits has forced doctors out of practice, and this is especially true for obstetricians. As I travel the state, many doctors have told me they feel forced to practice defensive medicine out of fear of frivolous lawsuits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that we could save $54 billion over the next 10 years if we enacted medical liability reform.
We should look more seriously at wellness programs that provide economic incentives for people to live healthy lives and use preventive care programs that have been implemented successfully by many large companies. Countless examples demonstrate that when wellness programs are used, insurance premiums go down and employees' health improves. Wellness is a win-win because we end up with lower health care costs and healthier families.
We need more transparency in our health care system. Health care is one of the only services we purchase where it is tremendously difficult to compare the prices of procedures and to obtain reliable information on quality. Consumers should have access to better information on the costs and quality of health care so they can make informed decisions about their own care.
We need to improve the efficiency and delivery of care with electronic medical records and better coordination of care. Patients who have chronic illnesses or diseases often have multiple doctors caring for them. Without coordinated care and physicians having access to complete information, a patient may receive duplicate tests or fail to receive the appropriate complementary treatment. Having electronic medical records and better coordination of care would save billions of dollars and provide patients with improved care.
We should allow small businesses to form a pool to purchase health insurance together. My husband, Joe, started a small business when he returned from serving in the Iraq War. Like other small business owners in New Hampshire and around the country, he has seen his health care costs explode over the last several years. By allowing small businesses to join together to purchase insurance, small businesses would have the same negotiating power as big companies. This can, and must, be done in a way that protects consumers. It is also inarguably true that when small businesses have lower health care costs, they are in a better position to create more jobs.
Finally, we should allow the purchase of insurance across state lines. This would create competition, driving down the cost of insurance. Additionally, it would give us more options to choose from when purchasing insurance.
There is no single silver bullet to solve our nation's health care problems. However, by using common sense, Congress can enact reforms drafted in the public's eye --instead of through back-room deals -- that reduce costs and provide us with better health care without raising taxes and driving up our deficit.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)