“These Tea Partiers aren’t well informed”

So says the new Democrat talking point. Really? Maybe the counterpoint should be “Boy those liberals are either too stupid or too evil to govern!”
Where does one begin to discuss this takeover over 1/6 of the United States economy? It’s such a complete mess that it would take volumes of information to weed through the swamp that is Liberal legislation. How ‘bout we start with every other big government spending program? Do any of them stand the tests of time to remain solvent? Social Security? Nope. Medicare? Nope. Medicaid? Nope. HUD and government housing oversight? Nope. United Stated Post Office? Not really. And while we’re at it, why is it that every other social spending program requires annual funding increases well beyond cost-of-living increases?
Depriving any individual of his hard-earned wage simply to redistribute it to anyone else who hasn’t earned it is immoral, evil, and un-American. I’m not talking about helping the indigent, but if we cut spending to only cover them we’d have huge budget surpluses every year. As predicted many decades ago, the development of the welfare state would soon lead to the creation of a dependent class of citizen, and isn’t that precisely who tax payers are forced to fork over their monies to?
This country existed – no, it prospered - for roughly 160 years before the advent of our first welfare programs, which were foisted upon the American people to help them through the Great Depression. But did they go away once said Depression was over? Nope – we’ve allowed the Marxists to expand programs and to develop even more sinister methods of depriving the worker under the guise of assisting the needy. From FDR to Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama: they were all cut from the same Marxist red cloth.
Touting the recent scoring of the Senate version of the Healthcare “reform” Act, the Democrats remained emboldened, at their own peril, and passed this sorry legislation. Nevermind the fact that the 2,400 page bill was kept from the American people until shortly before a weekend vote. The CBO was rushed to score it, and the Dems utilized a bit of sleight of hand to make the bill look as though it would cost less than it actually will. For example, there are three provisions that are vital to the scoring of the bill – provisions which are based entirely upon unrealistic assumptions:
(1) an excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” health care plans that would begin in 2013; (2) a reduction in physician payment rates for Medicare and other rate cuts for Medicare providers; (3) the implementation of an advisory board that would implement cost-saving measures to reduce Medicare spending, unless rejected by subsequent legislation.
These assumptions are particularly important. First, consider the effects of the excise tax as a potential revenue source. The tax is not implemented until 2013. This suggests that, in the near-term, firms that offer top-of-the-line insurance have an incentive to reduce the coverage extended to their employees to avoid the tax. This shift could potentially reduce health care spending as these individuals would then have to spend more in out-of-pocket costs – effectively raising the price and reducing the quantity demanded. Such a shift, however, would also imply lower tax revenue as these plans are eliminated.
Of course, even the analysis of the excise tax above makes important assumptions. For example, it was assumed that the tax was actually implemented and not repealed by subsequent legislation. In addition, the most vehement detractors of this provision have been labor unions as they tend to offer their members better benefits that could potentially be subject to the new tax. As a result, there has been discussion about creating an exemption to the excise tax for members of labor unions. Such an exemption, however, would result in lower tax revenue and a lesser reduction in health care spending.
The second assumption baked into the analysis is a reduction in physician payment rates for Medicare. This reduction was actually passed during the 1990s, but each year has been postponed by subsequent legislation. There is no reason to believe that, after the passage of the health care legislation, this reduction will not be postponed once again. Such a postponement would be enough to cause the health care bill to result in a $59 billion addition to the budget deficit over ten years. And of course one must consider why the government wants to lower Medicare reimbursement payments to doctors – becasue the government doesn’t have the money! As a result, more and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicare in the first place, because by accepting Medicare they are losing money. This is resulting in poorer medical care, not better. Many people seem to think that doctors shouldn’t make a profit – but when medical professionals are expected to work for declining profits, there soon won’t be any medical professionals. If doctors and nurses can be expected to work for the convenience of the state instead of for profit, why can’t everyone in every industry?
The final major funding source comes from the creation of an advisory panel that would recommend cost-savings measures for Medicare that would be enacted unless revoked by subsequent legislation. The bill assumes that this panel would be able to identify significant areas for cost reduction. This cost reduction could be in the form of greater efficiency or by reducing the quantity or quality of service. One is left to ponder how this will benefit the citizens, especially those who age and begin to require more healthcare services.
Overall, the bill assumes that reductions in payment rates to Medicare providers and those identified by the advisory panel would ensure that Medicare spending per beneficiary would grow at a rate of 2 percent per year (adjusted for inflation). As a method of comparison, this growth rate has been roughly 4 percent per year over the last 20 years.
The cuts to Medicare are an extremely important source of “revenue” for the health care bill. In fact, in the latest CBO projections (March 11, 2010), cuts to Medicare make up $430 billion of the funding over the next decade. This figure represents roughly 50 percent of the estimated total cost of $875 billion.
The facts are that the health care bill makes a great deal of assumptions about revenue sources that potentially obfuscate the true costs of the bill. When factored beyond the CBO timeline of 10 years (10 years taxation and only six years of benefit payments – another Democrat accounting trick) this healthcare bill is projected to create deficits of nearly 2.5 trillion dollars!

But wait, there’s more! To acquire Bart Stupak’s support the President had to promise that he would issue an Executive Order preventing the use of tax dollars to fund abortions. Understand that Stupak is a Democrat first, and a pro-lifer second – or maybe last. An Executive Order is not law. It is only binding until the President, current or future, repeals it. Upon becoming President in 2009, Obama’s first act was to issue an Executive Order repealing George W. Bush’s order banning embryonic stem cell research. Let’s wait and see how long it takes Obama to rescind his own order concerning abortion. All it will take is some half true story of a teenage girl getting pregnant who can’t afford to pay for her abortion out of pocket, and then the order will disappear faster than John Edwards’ political aspirations.
And let’s not forget Obama’s (and the Democrat Party’s) actual goal of Socialized Medicine. Don’t take my word for it either – take his own:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
This “Healthcare Reform Bill” is nothing of the kind. It is a major step toward Obama’s Socialist vision for America. That’s how the liberals work! One step at a time, but they will never give up.
We can’t either! Remember these shenanigans in November! Vote the bums out! And while we’re at it, let’s make sure that nothing of the kind can ever happen again in this country.
Now, who is it that's really uninformed?