“So Nash, my husband has convinced me that Obamacare’s not that bad. I mean, it’s just like Romneycare and you supported Mittens.” For the record, I would have supported a tin can in a race against Barry, and Romney had a slightly higher body temperature than a tin can. That being said, there are differences between the two laws. First, Romneycare only affected one state, not the entire country, and the last time I looked, we’re a country of Federalism, where states have rights that the federal govt. doesn’t have. Second, and more important from a practical standpoint is Romneycare doesn’t have (as many) business destroying taxes and that whole death panel thing (which is actually real by the way. It’s in the friggin’ bill. Read it).
In fact, Obamacare is such a destructive force in terms of costs that it may never be fully implemented. Don’t believe me? So far, approximately 2,000 waivers have been handed out by Health and Human Services. The waivers keep their recipients from having to comply with the dictates of Obamacare, which allows them to save money. See, mandating health insurance is really really expensive, and as a result, it increases costs on individuals and businesses in various ways. We conservatives have said for a long time that we don’t want to pay for it, and neither will anyone else. Liberals laughed at us and called us names, because, well, that’s what liberals do. As usual, the reality of money has come home to roost.
Minnesota’s two senators sought Monday to delay a tax on medical devices that was expected to add $28 billion over the next decade to help pay for health care reform.
Those two senators, one of whom is none other than Al “how the hell did I fall into this gig” Franken, are Dems who voted for Obamacare. One of the many tax increases contained within the law directly affects the cost of doing business for manufacturers of medical equipment. Apparently Minnesota has some of those. But it isn’t just two Dem Senators who want this part of the law repealed; there are 18 of them.
Repeal is the ultimate goal of the letter’s 18 signers, including Klobuchar, Franken and all the heavy hitters in the Senate Democratic leadership.
This is so typical. They create these social welfare programs that are so full of compassion, tolerance, and social justice-y goodness that they’re guaranteed to improve the lives of women, gays, blacks, illegals, transgenders, PETA members, college professors, college students, recent college graduates, government employees, spouses of government employees, Hispanics, the homeless, the poor, Sierra club members, people who smoke marijuana because it keeps them from getting blinder, and people who love public transportation but never use it because they might have to sit by any of the aforementioned groups of people. It’s unicorns and rainbows for everyone! And Obamaphones!
EXCEPT THAT WHOLE PART ABOUT PAYING FOR THE DAMN THING IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IGNORED BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO VOTES FOR A DEMOCRAT IS STUPID! AHHHHHHHHHHH!
I feel better now. Why is it that people who vote for the Democrat are unable to realize that stuff costs money? Is it that hard of a concept to grasp? Here we have Barry’s shining achievement: health care for all. Dammit, health care is a right! Well this completely non-right costs completely real money. And here we have 18 Democratic Senators asking Harry Reid to please please please delay the implementation of this thing because it’s going to make our economy worse which may result in us losing our jobs…after all of them voted for the damn thing.
Just kidding. I know the left understands that stuff costs money. They just want me to pay for it. And you know what? I don’t want to pay for it. This is precisely the reason why I want us to go over the fiscal cliff. I want the taxes of every single person who hates George W. Bush to go up because the George W. Bush tax cuts expire. You know when we’ll do away with liberalism? When liberals have to actually pay for the programs they vote for. When the Obamaphone lady has to actually pay for her Obamaphone, maybe then she’ll realize that her neighbor doesn’t exist to pay for her crap. Well, maybe not her neighbor, but you get my point.
It’s been a period of inactivity here at Why Not Nashville? I’m busy watching the RNC, getting ready for watching football (yes, that does take preparation), and doing some other very important things that you will get to hear about in the near future. Despite my failure to write you love letters for some time, don’t think I have forgotten about you, my loyal readers.
Much has taken place since last we spoke. For one, Paul Ryan, who this blog often discusses with reverence, has been tapped as The Mitt’s VP pick. I was, not unexpectedly, elated. Two nights ago, Mr. Ryan gave his VP acceptance speech at the RNC. Despite “not watching,” or “not caring,” or “actually taking a shower,” the libs are all up in arms about certain claims made about The One. The talking points have obviously gone out about Lyin’ Ryan and his, well, “lies.” Let’s look at those lies, shall we?
1. Ryan accuses Barry of closing down GM plant.
During his speech, Ryan recalled one of Barry’s moving 2008 speeches. During his monologue, then-candidate Barry, stood in front of a GM plant in Janesville, WI and said the government would keep the plant around for 100 years. As you likely guessed, it shut its doors about four months into the Obama presidency. The knee jerkers on the left then proceeded to claim that the plant had been closed in December 2008, during the Bush presidency, and therefore, Ryan LIED. You’ll note one thing about these claims: they’re all entirely unsupported. Is it a lie? Well, let’s ask the local news:
So, yeah, it’s true. Next.
2. Taxpayers didn’t get anything from the stimulus
Ryan didn’t say we didn’t get anything out of the stimulus. He said we got debt. Which is something. It’s something that sucks. Of course, the left claims this is a lie because, according to the CBO, 3.3 million jobs were created. What Ryan said isn’t so much a lie as an opinion. If we created 10 temporary jobs, but spent $25 million of taxpayer money to do it, is that a success? I guess it depends on what side of the aisle you’re on. Being that I’m on the right side, I don’t see how spending almost $800 billion to get 3.3 million temporary jobs is worth it. If I accept the CBO’s numbers as a fact, which I don’t since I don’t know what constitutes a “job created,” we still spent a ridiculous amount of money per job. And was it all worth it? Not even economists can agree:
Economists are less unified, however, on the question of whether the short-term benefits of the stimulus were worth the long-term cost. In the same February survey, only 46 percent of economic experts agreed that ‘the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs” — including “the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending.’
I guess we should ask Barry if it was a success. Let’s remember, it was The One who sold us on the stimulus, claiming unemployment would not rise past 8% if enacted. That estimate was a bit off. Bottom line: whether the stimulus was worth it is in the eye of the beholder, but Ryan’s statement is certainly not a lie.
3. Obamacare puts the Feds in charge of healthcare
Again, it depends on how you want to view Obamacare. It is a single-payer, socialist system? No. Not yet anyway. Let’s not forget when Barney Frank said it was the first step towards single-payer. In any event, what is Obamacare? It’s a system that forces private insurance companies to take on all comers, regardless of the fact that they might have scurvy, while not charging them for the limes in their Corona. In fact, the insurance companies can’t even raise rates without the federal govt. okaying it, regardless of whether there’s a lime shortage due to global climate change/warming/cooling. And the plan provides govt. subsidies for, well, almost everyone. While the feds may not be in charge of healthcare yet, Obamacare has certainly given them a substantial seat at the table.
4. Ryan blames Obama for the credit downgrade
The lefties claim it wasn’t Barry, but instead, was the dirty House Republicans playing chicken with the fiscal cliff, or because of chickens coming home to roost, or something about Chik-Fil-A. Well, what Standard and Poors actually said was:
The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.
* * *
Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.
In other words, America has a giant debt problem and the morons in charge of our govt. don’t care and won’t do anything about it. And if we all remember, it wasn’t the Republicans who were saying no to spending cuts (at least not this time). So, not a lie.
5. Ryan hints that Obama’s a Socialist
What the hell does that mean? Did he wink or something when talking about how much Barry loves suitcases of unmarked bills? In any event, it sounds like he was just saying what we’re already thinking. In any event, not a lie; it’s an opinion. Just kidding. It’s a fact.
I thought the left’s response to Ryan’s speech awesome, by the way. It shows they’re scared. In fact, they’re so terrified that people are going to like Paul Ryan that they have to invent lies that are easily debunked by the Google.
And then there’s Clint Eastwood. The libs are furious. I’m not sure why. For a guy everyone says was embarrassing, they’re sure spending a lot of time criticizing him. What’s so objectionable about a bumbling actor saying, hey, the guy in the White House is kinda’ stinkin’ up the joint, so why don’t we hire the guy with the sterling business record? Sounds pretty reasonable.
So what have we learned? When you mix Paul Ryan and Clint Eastwood, you get this:
Primary season has officially arrived in Illinois. Even though early voting has been going on for a while now, and the actual voting is almost upon us (the 20th), I really didn’t feel the upcoming election until last night, when, as I was trying to find my remote control, I began being fed propaganda by Mitt Romney. Many people hate these commercials. Not me. At least I’m not being forced to watch another advertisement about stuff I’ll never use; like tampons. I’m not a woman, but I did marry one (SCORE), and I’ve never seen her do gymnastics during that time of the month. Come to think of it, I’ve never seen her do gymnastics at any time of the month.
The point is, I like political commercials. It was nice to see Mittens all up in Santorum’s grill during his thirty-second spots. I didn’t see any for Santorum. Do these commercials really impact how people vote? It seems unlikely. For example, I was on the fence for a while, between Mittens and Santorum. But then Santorum said he’d heavily regulate internet pornography, which caused me to immediately fall/jump off the fence onto Romney’s well-manicured lawn. Santorum’s porn position was not mentioned in Romney’s commercial.
Truth is, I’m voting for Romney because he can win…I’m not convinced Santorum can. And winning matters. I like being part of a winning team, even if I sat on the end of the bench. Winning increases self-esteem, and chicks don’t dig losers. Also, Obama’s a friggin’ train wreck, and not the kind you can’t look away from. Problem is, the wreck is everywhere.
Take his monumental health care plan, for example. Obamacare is right up there with shooting an unarmed man in the face in terms of Barry’s Greatest Hits. Of course, all of us with an ounce of common sense (and by “common sense,” I mean the realization that stuff costs money), knew that the healthcare bill would cost way more than the administration was claiming. Why? Because you can’t subsidize the health care of millions without it costing lots of money.
Well, the CBO just updated its cost estimates for the kindler, gentler version of single-payer healthcare, and those estimates have provided strong support for Nancy Pelosi’s immortal words: “We need to pass it to know what’s in it.” What’s in it happens to be slightly more than the gross domestic product of Italy, circa 2010:
President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.
President Obama’s proposed budget would add $6.4 trillion to the nation’s deficits over the next decade, according to a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
And this is before the thing even gets implemented (coming in 2014). I can hear the liberals now…actually I can’t. My guess is we won’t hear anything from the left on this. All we heard from the left during the debate about Obamacare was that it would be deficit neutral. That they’d find the savings by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in Medicare. That they’d lower health care costs. Well, those things all turned out to be inaccurate. So, either the administration was criminally negligent in the quality of accountants it hired, or it simply lied. I’ll let you decide which.
All of this leads me back to the beginning. I’m voting for Romney because he can win (and he hasn’t mentioned regulating porn). In fact, I think he will win. Don’t look at national polls; look at local polls in the swing states. And don’t look at them now, because Obama is currently running against himself; even he can’t lose that race. Once Romney gets the nomination though, he’ll (hopefully) start pointing out Obama’s many large and distinguished warts. Does Romney have some of his own? Sure (see: Romneycare). But at the end of the day, we’ll have a very successful businessman up against a college professor who has presided over the worst economic recovery since our last little-dictator shoved the New Deal disaster down America’s collective throat.
It seems everyone with any shwag is getting a waiver for Obamacare now-days. What is a waiver from Obamacare you ask? Well, in its effort to create awesome health care benefits out of pixie dust and rainbows, the new health care law compels privately-owned insurance providers to give at least $2 million in annual benefits to insureds by 2013. Well that sounds like a great idea! Unlimited insurance benefits for all!
It turns out that there’s a small problem with requiring companies to provide a certain level of coverage to all insureds though. It’s called reality. A company like McDonald’s, for example, provides some health benefits for its low-wage workers because the premiums aren’t terribly high…so it’s affordable. Do you think $2 million a year is going to be affordable? Probably not. Hence the waivers.
The waivers allow health insurance plans to limit how much they will spend on a policy holder’s medical coverage for a given year. Under the new health care law, however, such annual limits are phased out by the year 2014. (Under HHS regulations, annual limits can be no less than $750,000 for 2011, no less than $1.25 million in 2012 and no less than $2 million in 2013.)
So far, 222 organizations have been granted waivers from having to comply with Obamacare. The most recent: three local chapters of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). No, this isn’t about unions per se. Fact it, lots of large companies and charitable organizations have been issued waivers. The purpose of this post is to simply inquire into whether Obamacare can be defined as a good thing if no one can afford to comply with it (I know, this question often vexes liberals)?
Let’s face it…the new health care law is an entitlement program whose purpose is to provide good healthcare, at a cheap cost, to those deemed most at risk. Unfortunately, good healthcare at a cheap cost doesn’t exist in the real world. So, what needs to happen? Well, first, the big political donors need to be satiated. Hence specifically exempting them from the law. Second, those low-wage employees of the big political donors will need to be subsidized in some way by the government. Why? Because if Obamacare results in janitors not receiving the same annual insurance limits of everyone else, even the libs will admit failure.
You see, there is no such thing as a free lunch. A company can’t survive by offering cadillac plans to everyone, and not charging appropriate premiums to everyone. An insurance provider can’t afford to offer insurance to someone with heart disease who smokes five packs a day, while only requiring the premium of a healthier person. But the government doesn’t exist in the real world, and that’s why the end result of Obamacare will be a lack of private insurance providers offering benefits to everyone else.
But that’s the point, isn’t it?