by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
Last week’s Meet the Press roundtable featured, among others, E.J. Dionne — a columnist with the Washington Post. Mr. Dionne’s discussion on Obama and Obamacare was so incredibly inaccurate, it is quite obvious that he is a person who just likes to make up facts as he goes along. And with moderators like David Gregory, who do little to nothing to question the commentary coming from his guests, viewers are left with severely wrong or misinterpreted information.
Some highlights from the show:
>>“Look, I think there is something crazy when people say where government can’t deliver health care. Ever heard of Medicare? Ever heard of Medicaid?”
The fact is that Medicare is actuarially and actually bankrupt, and Medicaid is virtually bankrupting large numbers of states as we speak. Why do people have a positive view of Medicare – simply because they are getting $3 of medical care for each $1 they spend (and hiding from them the fact that the $2 difference will be paid by their children and grandchildren). An SEC investigation would have everyone associated with such a program behind bars. I suppose technically the government does “deliver healthcare” via Medicare and Medicaid but they are so egregiously flawed and mismanaged that it can hardly be considered successful.
> >”President Obama chose to go for a model that is a market-oriented model that Republicans favor, of helping people buy private health insurance”.
A blatant lie. Republicans do favor a market oriented model, but ObamaCare is certainly not anything like one. Can anyone list all the names of the House Republicans who supported and voted for Obamacare in Congress? None? That’s right. In addition, Obamacare is no more a market-oriented model when it renders obsolete millions of plans already freely chosen by Americans and replaces them with fewer and more expensive options — while bullying insurance companies to alter dates and plans according to the whim of any number of government agencies.
>>But what you’re seeing already is there is an enormous appetite among all the Americans who don’t have health insurance to buy it. And that’s what’s going to save Obamacare. This is filling a real need in the society”.
The actual enrollment figures for Obamacare are way off and lower-than-expected. It is so dismal that the White House is counting among the totals for the media the number of people who have “put a plan in their shopping cart” but haven’t paid for it yet in order to bolster totals. Likewise, a lack of “appetite” for Obamacare has resulted in the Obama Administration panicking and paying hundreds of millions of taxpayer money to run commercials and partner with organizations, groups, and non-profits in order to push citizens to sign up before the deadlines (that keep shifting).
>>Every rich democracy in the world uses government to deliver healthcare. You had Christine Lagarde on. France spends less per capita in government spending to cover everybody than we spend for just Medicare and Medicaid. So this thing can work. It needs fixes. And I think the next move by the president is to tell Republicans, do you want to fix this or do you just want to get rid of it?
First of all, the United States is a Republic, not a democracy. Second, the emphasis on the word “rich” is telling because it reeks of the same class warfare-equality policies that have been quintessential to Obama’s presidency. Obamacare is exactly that. It is a wealth transfer that forces the healthy and/or wealthy to subsidize the plans of the uninsured, sicker, or poorer through government fiat — an “individual mandate”. And while Mr. Dionne wishes to hold up France as the pinnacle of Western governing, the French just passed a 75% tax on the wealthy in order to pay for the Socialist policies of Francois Hollande.
E.J.Dionne is representative of the typical progressive pundit who has no framework of reality, and frankly, doesn’t seem to care. He repeats whatever talking points are suitable for the day and the Obama Administration, and its a damn shame that the actual moderators of Meet the Press lack the knowledge or fortitude to call into question their information.
_______________________________
Now What?
Did you like what you read?
If you did, I hope you’ll join my Secret Tax Club.
It’s free, it’s via email, and it’s for you.
I periodically send out information such as tax tips, reading suggestions, articles and more, and the information is not always available anywhere else, even on my own website.
If you want to join, visit my Secret Tax Club page.
Thanks for visiting Tax Politix
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
With all the talk abuzz about an inevitable Hillary Clinton candidacy, I wager that her platform might quite likely include repealing Obamacare. Hillary is certain to declare late in the spring so that she can positively impact the midterm elections to benefit the Democrats.
What would Hillary gain from a repeal-Obamacare platform? Here’s three things:
First, a “repeal-Obamacare” position would effectively neuter the Republican narratives of anyone running in 2014 (and possibly beyond). All the hand-wringing and fundraising, all the sob-stories and alarm bells about Obamacare would be utterly weakened if Hillary was out there saying the exact same thing.
Think about it: any Republican candidate on the same policy page as Hillary Clinton would be disastrous for that candidate. The Republicans are hoping for strong gains in 2014 — possibly even taking the Senate — and are banking on a fledgling Obamacare to do it. This objective could not be achieved with Hillary added to the mix arguing that Obamacare is not good legislation.
Second, a “repeal-Obamacare” position from Hillary would give vulnerable Democrats a free pass to sever close ties and loyalty to Obama. Obama is toxic right now; his popularity is in the mid ‘30s and his signature legislation is overwhelmingly disliked across the country. With Hillary jumping in, Democrats would be able to rally around a more popular and likeable Democrat (what Democrat doesn’t like the Clintons?). They could distance themselves from Obama and Obamacare without hurting the Democrat brand for the elections; Hillary enhances that brand right now much better than Obama can.
Finally, Hillary herself was intimately involved in health care reform after Clinton’s election in 1992. The legislation she helped champion via the Taskforce For Health Care Reform was aptly dubbed “Hillarycare”.
Twenty years later — in comparison to what we’ve seen of Obamacare, does Hillarycare looks so bad? Maybe not to some people. Is this the alternative solution and finally Hillary’s day in the sun? Possibly, but not likely.
It is much more plausible that Hillary would take healthcare reform even further than Obamacare. Knowing the growing disdain for mandates and the insurance system that seems helplessly broken right now, Hillary would likely lobby instead for a single-payer system.
This is a dream of many progressives and Democrats. It would be presented as a “simplified” alternative solution to the byzantine problem that is Obamacare, at a time when the Republicans lack their own, strong Obamacare alternative.
Whatever the case, running on repealing Obamacare is a win-win for Hillary. She gets to directly impact and help the midterm elections for the Democrats. 6 years after her primary defeat against Obama, Hillary will emerge as the better, wiser, and more likeable Democrat (revenge is a dish best served cold?). And finally, Hillary will have the unprecedented opportunity to finish the healthcare reform she started two decades ago, since practically anything will be seen as better than Obamacare now.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
Today, the architect of Obamacare, Zeke Emanuel, modified another one of Obama’s promises. This time, he explained the “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” now actually means “if you want to, you can pay for it,”.
During Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace pressed Emanuel to whether the promise would be upheld. Here’s the exchange, courtesy of The Weekly Standard.
“The president never said you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country you want to go to,” said the Obamacare architect.
“No. He asked a question. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Did he not say that, sir?”
“He didn’t say you could have unlimited choice.”
“It’s a simple yes or no question. Did he say if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?”
“Yes. But look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. This is a matter of choice. We know in all sorts of places you pay more for certain — for a wider range of choices or wider range of benefits….“
Here’s the problem. Right on the White House website, there is a document called “Health Insurance Reform Reality Check”. . There it states: “It’s never been more important to dispel these outlandish rumors and myths. Learn the facts and share them with your friends, family and neighbors.”
Then it has a “Reality Check” list. The very first bullet item says this:
“You Can Keep Your Own Insurance
Reform isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan”.
Notice that it doesn’t say, “if you like your doctor, you might have to pay more”
This isn’t the only place on whitehouse.gov that has the Doctor Promise. On the FAQ page entitled “Putting Americans In Charge of their Health Care”, it says:
“Q
: Will the government take my choice of doctor away?
A: No.
Nothing about the President’s proposal will interfere with the choice of doctors you have today. The legislation will not cause you to change the coverage you have at work today”
Here’s the screencap:
In fact, the Doctor Promise goes all the way back to at least 2009. On whitehouse.gov, you can find Obama’s weekly address from August 8th, 2009, where he states,
“So, let me explain what reform will mean for you. And let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That’s simply not true. This isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.
So, since at least 2009, we’ve been hearing the simple promise, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”. Yet today we hear a modified version of that Promise, much like the recent caveat to the “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” promise”.
Now we find out the caveat to the Doctor Promise. Here’s the rest of the interview with Emanuel from earlier today. The exchange with Wallace finishes up:
“The president guaranteed me I could keep my doctor,” said Wallace.
“And if you want to, you can pay for it,” said Emanuel.
Caveat emptor, indeed.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
As each day passes, the various facets of Obamacare are getting implemented in order to be fully operational by January 1, 2014. But we are hearing about the difficulties in the implementation caused primarily by either 1) the website fiasco; 2) low number of enrollees; and 3) people wanting to pay the penalties in order to avoid having to pay for intentionally overpriced health “insurance”.
In order to achieve adequate and targeted enrollment in Obamacare those representing the Government have begun to be aggressive. They are choosing to use all methods at their disposal to pressure, cajole, and otherwise push people to “do the right thing” and buy the mandated insurance product. This began in earnest last spring, as the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was given millions at her disposal to dispatch “navigators” and “in-person assisters” to help enroll more Americans into Obamacare. But the very act of doing so may be rendering Obamacare unconstitutional.
It is worthwhile to remember that the only way in which the law of Obamacare was saved from being declared unconstitutional was the that that there is no penalty associated with Obamacare, which would have made it subject to the Commerce Clause. It was ruled to be a “tax” derived from not purchasing the mandated health coverage. In reaching his conclusion, Justice Roberts accepted the Administration’s argued position that there is absolutely no negative interference whatsoever on anyone opting to pay the “tax” rather than buy the product.
Therefore, any attempt by the administration or any of the implementing bodies to pressure, threaten or even imply some sort of wrongdoing by those choosing to not buy insurance would be clearly unconstitutional.
If those implementing Obamacare are properly following the Supreme Court’s mandate, they should be telling prospective insurance purchasers that they should be deciding for themselves whether they would be better off with the insurance or the penalty. We know this is not happening. At the macro level, governors have been hustled to implement the exchanges in their states. And at the individual level, Obamacare officials are pushing for more enrollees to ensure a steady flow of premiums paid by healthy patients in order to cover those who are high-risk and high-cost.
Just a few recent examples:
1) The LGBT Community created an Out2Enroll campaign to encourage LGBT to enroll in Obamacare after “the Obama administration called a meeting of LGBT leaders in mid-September. Nearly 200 from across the country met with the White House to talk about the potential impact of Obamacare. It also looked at what LGBT leaders could do to spread the word.”
2) Latinos with green cards were pushed to enroll in Obamacare at a recent forum marketed on the Get Covered America website. “Get Covered America is the nonprofit publicity and recruitment arm of “Enroll America,” which aims to ‘maximize the number of uninsured Americans who enroll in health coverage made available by the Affordable Care Act,’ according to its website”. Enroll America also has people going door-to-door with clipboards to sign people up, according to the Washington Post.
3) Hollywood celebrities teamed up with the White House to learn how to help shill for Obamacare. “Back in July, a group of Hollywood stars gathered at the White House to strategize a push for registration after the October 1 rollout of the Affordable Care Act. Among others, Amy Poehler, Jennifer Hudson, Kal Penn, and representatives for Oprah Winfrey, Alicia Keys, and the Funny or Die team offered their influence during a meeting with senior aide Valerie Jarrett and, briefly, President Obama himself”.
4) Government-funded Navigator Grants are setting up neighborhood centers for Obamacare enrollment. According to this story about a center with ties to former ACORN execs, “The government has given out $67 million in Navigator grants to help with the controversial rollout of ObamaCare. It was not clear if Local 100 got a grant of its own, but it has set up a help center with Southern United Neighborhoods, a charity founded in March 2010 with many former ACORN members, to enroll people in ObamaCare. Southern United Neighborhoods received a Navigator grant of $486,123”
5) The White House kicked off a 6 month ad campaign a week before the October 1 starting sign-up date. The objective of the ad blitz is “to encourage millions of Americans to sign up for health coverage under ‘Obamacare’ an effort in which the president and other political celebrities promote the law’s promise of subsidized health coverage”.
Are these government-backed and/or funded pushes to enroll in Obamacare violating the constitutionality of Obamacare with regard to negative interference?
The SCOTUS ruling hinged on the government not implying that people are doing anything wrong by not signing up. It is a tax that citizens are allowed to pay in lieu of enrollment. But with such a massive effort touting Obamacare, the government is directly interfering in the choice. There is no neutrality. It amounts to coercion, and creates the implication that by not enrolling, citizens are doing a bad thing. Does this contradict the Supreme Court decision?
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
As each day passes, the various facets of Obamacare are getting implemented in order to be fully operational by 2014. And we are beginning to hear about difficulties in the implementation caused primarily by either 1) people or companies trying to avoid the “penalties” or 2) people wanting to pay the penalties in order to avoid having to pay for intentionally overpriced health “insurance”.
In order to achieve adequate and targeted enrollment in Obamacare those representing the Government have begun to be aggressive. They are choosing to use all methods at their disposal to pressure, cajole, and otherwise push people to “do the right thing” and buy the mandated insurance product. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has millions now at her disposal to dispatch “navigators” and “in-person assisters” to help enroll more Americans into Obamacare. But the very act of doing so may be rendering Obamacare unconstitutional.
It is worthwhile to remember that the only way in which the law of Obamacare was saved from being declared unconstitutional was the that that there is no penalty associated with Obamacare. It was ruled to be a “tax” derived from not purchasing the mandated health coverage. In reaching his conclusion, Justice Roberts accepted the Administration’s position that there is absolutely no negative interference whatsoever on anyone opting to pay the “tax” rather than buy the product.
Therefore, any attempt by the administration or any of the implementing bodies to pressure, threaten or even imply some sort of wrongdoing by those choosing to not buy insurance would be clearly unconstitutional.
If those implementing Obamacare are properly following the Supreme Court’s mandate, they should be telling prospective insurance purchasers that they should be deciding for themselves whether they would be better off with the insurance or the penalty. We know this is not happening. At the macro level, governors have been hustled to implement the exchanges in their states. And at the individual level, Obamacare officials are pushing for more enrollees to ensure a steady flow of premiums paid by healthy patients in order to cover those who are high-risk and high-cost.
What can be done? If we are vigilant in not allowing individuals and businesses into being compelled to buy Obamacare, can we starve the beast? Are the tactics and funding unconstitutional? If so, Obamacare may just die of its own deficiencies.
