Posted 4 months, 8 days ago in 
Loading ...
I fully support House Resolution 615, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and agree to enroll under that public option.
I urge Rep. John Salazar to become a cosponsor of the resolution and be willing to be accountable for any vote made to reform health care in America.
GEORGE E. CORT
Montrose
26 Responses to “Politicians voting for federal health care should forgo federal plan”
Posted July 17th, 2009 at 10:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The letter writer wishes to forego the “federal government run health insurance option.” Very well. Now, let him provide some positive alternative to how he would solve all of the problems with the current “private” options such as availability, cost, etc. Let him also remember that the current system is the one that has failed in many respects. And, we certainly hope he does not come back with the standard mantra of “private enterprise”, “socialism”, and if someone cannot get insurance “It’s their fault and they are just lazy”, that simply will not wash any longer (not for someone serious about really solving problems).
We can discuss theory all we want, that having to do with one economic system vs. another, but people are not abstract things, they are real, and real people need real results. So, instead of being “against” everything all the time the letter writer, and others, would do well to tell their representatives at all levels of government to “drop the ideology and get the problems solved.”
You have a better plan, then propose it and show us how it would solve the problems better than what others have proposed. If you don’t, at least have the common sense to remain silent, and let those who are at least trying to do so.
Posted July 17th, 2009 at 10:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
From today’s Wall Street Journal:
“Say this about the 1,018-page health-care bill that House Democrats unveiled this week and that President Obama heartily endorsed: It finally reveals at least some of the price of the reckless ambitions of our current government. With huge majorities and a President in a rush to outrun the declining popularity of his agenda, Democrats are bidding to impose an unrepealable European-style welfare state in a matter of weeks.
Mr. Obama’s February budget provided the outline, but the House bill now fills in the details. To wit, tax increases that would take U.S. rates higher even than most of Europe. Yet even those increases aren’t nearly enough to finance the $1 trillion in new spending, which itself is surely a low-ball estimate. Meanwhile, the bill would create a new government health entitlement that will kill private insurance and lead to a government-run system.
Hyperbole? That’s what people said when we warned about this last fall in “A Liberal Supermajority,” but even we underestimated the ideological willfulness of today’s national Democrats. Consider only a few of the details:
A huge new income surtax. The bill’s main financing comes from another tax increase on top of the increase already scheduled for 2011 under Mr. Obama’s budget. The surtax starts at one percentage point for adjusted gross income above $350,000 in 2011, rising to two points in 2013; a 1.5 point surtax at incomes above $500,000, rising to three in 2013; and a whopping 5.4 percentage points in 2011 and beyond on incomes above $1 million.
This would raise the top marginal federal tax rate back to roughly 47% or 48%, if you include the Medicare tax and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. With the current top rate at 35%, this would be the largest rate increase outside the Great Depression or world wars.
The average U.S. top combined state-federal marginal tax rate would hit about 52%. This would be higher than in all but three (Denmark, Sweden, Belgium) of the 30 countries measured by the OECD. According to the nearby table compiled by the Heritage Foundation, taxpayers in at least five U.S. states would pay higher marginal rates even than Sweden. South Korea, which Democrats worry is stealing American jobs, would be able to grab even more as its highest rate is a far more competitive 38.5%.
House Democrats say they deserve credit for being honest about the tax increases needed to fund their ambitions. But then they also claim that this surtax would raise $544 billion in new revenue over 10 years. America’s millionaires aren’t that stupid; far fewer of them will pay these rates for very long, if at all. They will find ways to shelter income, either by investing differently or simply working less. Small businesses that pay at the individual rate will shift to pay the 35% corporate rate. When the revenue doesn’t materialize, Democrats will move to soak the middle class with a European-style value-added tax.
Phony numbers. Democrats will have to come up with something, because even the surtax puts their bill at least $300 billion short of honest financing. The public insurance “option” doesn’t even begin until 2013 and the costs are heavily weighted toward the later years, but the tax hikes start in 2011. So under Congress’s 10-year budget window, the House bill is able to pay for seven years of spending with nine years of taxes. Andy Laperriere of the ISI Group estimates the bill would add $95 billion to the deficit in 2019 alone.
Then there’s yesterday’s testimony, from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf, that ObamaCare’s cost “savings” are an illusion. Mr. Obama claims government can cover more people and pay less to do it. But Mr. Elmendorf told the Senate Finance Committee that “In the legislation that has been reported we don’t see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs.”
Further on the public plan: “It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate.”
No matter, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is whisking the bill through House committees even before CBO has had a chance to score it in detail. As Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan put it to us, “We will not have read it, and we will not have a score of it, but we will have passed it out of committee.”
A new payroll tax. Unemployment is at 9.5% and rising, but Democrats will nonetheless impose a new eight percentage point payroll tax on employers who don’t provide health insurance for employees. This is on top of the current 15% payroll tax, and in addition to a new 2.5-percentage point tax on individuals who don’t buy health insurance. This means that any employer with more than $400,000 in payroll would have to pay at least 25% above the salary to hire someone. Result: Many fewer new jobs, with a higher structural jobless rate, much as Europe has experienced as its welfare states have expanded.
Other new taxes, including an as yet undetermined levy on private health plans. This tax, which Democrats say could raise $100 billion or so, would make it even harder for private plans to compete with the government plan, which would already benefit from government subsidies and lower capital costs. For good measure, the House bill also gets the ball rolling on tax increases on foreign-source corporate income.
We could go on, and we will in coming days. But the most remarkable quality of this health-care exercise is its reckless disregard for economic and fiscal reality. With the economy still far from a healthy recovery, and the federal fisc already nearly $2 trillion in deficit, Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history. The world is looking on, agog, and wondering why the United States seems intent on jumping off this cliff.”
Posted July 17th, 2009 at 3:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dr. Wright: “But still this is a major improvement, a first step toward manhood!”
A “man” recognizes that life is duty and obligation, not “tip toeing through the tulip patch” or showing up only when he feels like it or it is convenient. A “man” searches out his duties and obligations. He neither ignores nor avoids them. A “man” thinks about others, not only himslef. A “man” does not pretend to be what he is not. A “man” (at least a mature one) grows up, both emotionally and intellectually as well as physically. A “man” uses his life experiences to learn from. He does not live in that past. A “man” thinks with his brain, not some other bodily part. A “man” does his own thinking, he does not regurgitate what others tell him or what others have said. A “man” develops his own belief system, he does not allow others to develop it for him. And, a “man” knows that not everything is economic theory or measured only in economic terms. A “man”, a real one, is not at all ashamed of having a conscience, even a social one.
Posted July 17th, 2009 at 4:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey Bullie,
On the conservative to liberal meter what was the last time the Wall Street Journal was even straight up? Where was the WSJ in the early days of the civil rihts campaign? Where is the WSJ in the battle for equal for men and women?
The WSJ espouses the views of most of its subscribers and many of its advertisers and the last time any of those folks wanted to do anything that might solve problems for or spread more rights to those who did not already have them was when? Ooops, that’s okay I can not remember that far back either.
Argue that the rich should not be taxed more if you want, but to say that the proposed health care bills will be the end of either the health insurance industry or the US is simply, to use your word, hyperbole.
Posted July 17th, 2009 at 4:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey onie, if you want to discuss anything in the article I posted, be my guest. If all you are going to say is that anything written in the Wall Street Journal is not to be believed because it is not a liberal rag, then that’s your prerogative.
Unfortunately, now that the liberal media in this country has advocated its responsibility to question the liberal in charge, there are very few media outlets left who will tell the truth. And the Wall Street Journal is one of them.
And as to saying that the rich should not be taxed, you should try to understand that I did not write the piece.
Now, if you and your liberal cohorts think that you can tax the rich enough to wipe out a trillion dollars a year of projected deficit, you are dilusional.
And, the fact that the deficits projected are going to be destructive, is something that even the liberal in charge has admitted. So why don’t you call HIM hyperboleus.
Finally, even Democrats in the OCngress understand that the liberal in charge is taking the country down a road to destruction. They know that come election time they will be up crap’s creek if they go along with his programs. They are watching the polls and they see how fast they are going down.
Enjoy it while it lasts, onie.
Posted July 17th, 2009 at 4:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“..Vif you want to discuss anything in the article I posted, be my guest. If all you are going to say is that anything written in the Wall Street Journal is not to be believed because it is not a liberal rag, then that’s your prerogative.”
Really? Is this the same Wall Street Journal who did such a good job that it kept the public informed of what was happening in the financial markets and predicted the collapse of those markets? Is this not the same Wall Street Journal that did all of that investitgative work on Wall Street chicanery? Is this not the same Wall Street Journal that is controlled by Rupert Murdoch?
I would say that we need to look at the Wall Street Journal but whatever is written in that publication has to be checked and double-checked against other sources as well. That is true whether they are reporting, evaluating or opining. The days of accepting everything written in that publication as “gospel” has long since passed. And, as is also true, it really did it to itself. Like many others, it was far too busy going with the flow in the so-called “prosperity” to pay much attention to, or do any real reporting. They, like many other organization, surrendered to the siren of the “easy buck”, and surrendered a great deal of their credibility along with it.
Posted July 17th, 2009 at 5:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, Laitres, you too have the option of disputing what was written in that article.
But I suspect that is not what you do. Because you can’t.
Posted July 17th, 2009 at 7:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are back to the blather. I liked the spin master or angry teenager better.
Bottom line is that the Bull is correct. We are rushing where fools fear to tread with B.O. at the helm. Our grandchildren’s grandchildren may well study this in history as the biggest spending disaster since post WWI Germany.
Posted July 17th, 2009 at 7:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And which history would that be? Sounds like you are referring to the eight years of Bush/Cheney. That is the period that our grandchildren’s children will be studying as the time our country lost it’s footing.
Posted July 17th, 2009 at 8:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
seabeeWWII: “And which history would that be?”
Actually, they merely refer to history, and the only acquaintance they have with it is either from grade school, high school, or a few introductory courses in college (the electives they were forced to take). And, not knowing anything about it or not having lived any of it, they make up their very own version, the neo-con revision edition. So, we have to be patient with such intellectual children. Hopefully a few of them might choose to at least study it but, let us not hold our breath for them to do so for “dey alredy noze ebwythin end dosnt neads no moore two lern.”
Posted July 17th, 2009 at 8:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You need to put on your reading glasses and look at the numbers. There are more zeros tacked on to the end than most liberals can count. By the Obama standard, Reagan and Clinton were fiscal conservatives, both Bushes were moderate, and Obama takes the cake as the biggest spender in human history. What part of that is hard to comprehend?
Posted July 17th, 2009 at 8:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Back to blather, eh RL? Why don’t you grow back your spine or crawl back under your rock and leave the rest of us alone?
Posted July 17th, 2009 at 10:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
My eyesight is better than your recollection of just who was responsible for our downward spiral. If my memory would fail me the stinch remains.
Anyone that followed that would have been forced to do much the same as Obama.
Posted July 18th, 2009 at 7:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dr. Wright: “Back to blather, eh RL? Why don’t you grow back your spine or crawl back under your rock and leave the rest of us alone?”
Now, who is being puerile? What is the above poster doing but demanding that the pulpit be ceded to him? Actually, most individuals do not know history at all. They don’t even know what it really is. And, when it is pointed out to them, they get upset.
It would seem that any individual, when it is pointed out to them that they don’t know something will make every effort to learn in order to correct that deficiency instead of merely reacting emotionally in denial. But, the latter is what far too many individuals do. Why is that? Is it for fear of being found in error or is it because if they did learn about the past, they would learn that most of what they believe has been seen in that past, and has been proven to be wrong.
A quote often used, even by some so-called “conservatives” is: “Those who do not know the past are condemned to repeat it.” That is all too true as any student of history knows. But, even those who use that quotation have no idea why that is the case. Consequently, they use it so as to appear to be savant, and posturing in an attempt to impress others as to their knowledge. Unfortunately for them, to those familiar with history, that is immediately regognized for what it is.
While it may be more comfortable for such as the above quoted poster if everyone “went away”, as far as I am concerned, that is not about to happen. As to a spine, perhaps what offends the above quoted poster is not that those who disagree with him/her are right or wrong, but rather the simple fact that he/she is being disagreed with. Many simply cannot tell the difference and that is why they take personal offense, get flustered, and go ad hominem. That is not at all mature, either intellectually or emotionally. That denotes but a “closed” mind.
Posted July 18th, 2009 at 8:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres ahd 5 posts on this thread. This thread is about the health care debate. Does Laitres provide one iota of value to the discussion?
Of course not.
On my post #2 I inserted an op-ed piece that provided, in my opinion, a pretty good summary of the argument against the bill that is being proposed by the House. Laitres riled against the fact that the piece was published in the WSJ, which he sees as a right wing rag and, therefore, unreliable.
But when asked to refute any or all of what was in the piece, he ran. As expected.
Laitres refuses to inject himself into any and all discussions that relate to the here and now. Instead he fills space at this site with philosphy, psychobabble, and attacks on posters who are outside the left fringe of the political spectrum.
It is a sad spectacle to watch. Someone scared to take a position that he can back up.
Posted July 18th, 2009 at 8:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Seabee: “Anyone that followed that would have been forced to do much the same as Obama.”
OK, let’s look at facts.
When Obama came into office he found one hell of an economic mess. No one denies that. We can quibble about who exactly was responsible, but that does not solve anything. The issue now is what should be done to fix it.
So the first thing that happens is that Obama relegates the power of crafting an economic recovery plan to the congress. And the congress comes up with an $800 billion dollar bill which, we are assured, will create jobs, jobs, jobs. But anyone who looks at that bill can see that most of what is in it is pork and programs that provide little stimulus. All the talk about “shovel ready” projects was B.S. Here we are 6 months after passage and hardly any of those projects are underway. So what we have is an economy that remains stagnant despite all of that spending that will go to increase future budget deficits.
Next we have Obama’s first budget. And that results in budget deficits of a trillion dollars a year, starting next year, and continuing for the next ten years. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Obama deficit is TWICE what the deficit would have been without his new programs. In other words, HE is the one creating this deficit which he, himself now says, keeps him awake at night.
If the threat that his deficits have on the future of our economy was not enough, he next comes in with cap and trade. A program that will increase taxes on everyone and can only make the economy worse.
And now, despite the economic mess we continue to be in, and economic disaster which looms for the next ten years because of=f his deficits, he is trying to ram through an enormous health care program which will take the deficit even worse.
This health care program is being touted as a way of reducing health care costs. That is a lie. The CBO has shown in the last few days that the program does not reduce costs. The president says the health care bill will be deficit neutral for the next ten years. That is totally misleading and plain dishonest as discussed in the op-ed piece I posted in #2.
The American people are not stupid enough to continue to buy the liberal argument that all that continues to be wrong, and that will be wrong in the future, can be blamed for the previous administration. At some point the liberals will have to take responsibility for their actions. And, as the polls are beginning to show, that time is now.
Posted July 18th, 2009 at 8:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“On my post #2 I inserted an op-ed piece that provided, in my opinion, a pretty good summary of the argument against the bill that is being proposed by the House. Laitres riled against the fact that the piece was published in the WSJ, which he sees as a right wing rag and, therefore, unreliable.”
The above responder missed the point of my response in its entirely. What was brougt into question was the reliability of his source; i.e. the Wall Street Journal, and the fact that it is not the least impartial, neither in its reporting, its analysis, and definitely not in its opinions.
Whie he may wish to accept that source as “gospel”, the recent failures in investigation and informing the public would indicate that it should not be. Whatever it publishes needs to be questione, much as is whatever is published in any other outlet. Failure to do so would seem to indicate the mind set of a blind believer, and not that of any individual who is any type of serious thinker willing to expend the effort to learn and understand.
As to the use of “rag”, that we will leave to those who wish to use such terms, on any side of any question. And, in this case, the above quoted poster merely makes the assumption that such is what others think. It really has no basis in fact, or based upon anything stated in the post to which he was attempting a reply.
Posted July 18th, 2009 at 8:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish: “The American people are not stupid enough to continue to buy the liberal argument that all that continues to be wrong, and that will be wrong in the future, can be blamed for the previous administration. At some point the liberals will have to take responsibility for their actions”
Well the American people were stupid enough to give Bush eigh years to bring us to this point. We can at least give Obama a couple of years before we try to make him fail. It is too early to assess the affect of his efforts so far. The majority of his fix is yet to be felt.
Posted July 18th, 2009 at 10:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, once again, in post #17, Laitres refuses to discuss the issues. Nothing new here.
Posted July 18th, 2009 at 10:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Seabee, I wish he would take some time. Look, I want to be wrong on where this economy is headed this because if I am right, ma and my business will suffer along with everyone else.
He was elected for four years, not one year.
His number one priority needs to be fixing the economy. That is where the bulk of his efforts need to be expended right now.
The fix to the health care is issue is major and just because it has taken a long time to be adequately addressed, it does not mean that once it begins to be addressed it has to be resolved in a few weeks. If it takes a couple of years to get a good bill crafted that addresses the main issues, including cost, then that is what should be done.
On the other hand, if the fear is that once the people of the country see the light of day on the bill, and if the expectation is that there will be a huge outcry, then it is probably best for Obama to ram it through so when the objections are raised it is too late to do anyhting about it.
From what I am seeing, however, Senate, and even Congressional Democrats, who are not on the left fringes, are objecting to the House proposal. So, hopefully, some good sense will come into play and the rush to get it done will slow.
Posted July 18th, 2009 at 10:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
seabeeWWII, I think we are talking apples and oranges. Obama, as a member of the senate, had only a minor role in current place we were in the economy when he has elected. You have a point there. But that is not what my post was about. Obama’s vision of printing dollars to obtain a healthy economy is my point. It shows a lack of understanding of fundamental economics.
Posted July 18th, 2009 at 10:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“So, once again, in post #17, Laitres refuses to discuss the issues. Nothing new here.”
The central issue is always, first and formost, what is the reliability of the source. And, until that is addressed and established, anything that follows is mere speculation and/or empty rhetoric. And, that questioning of source, by the way, is a perfectly valid point to make and in any type of argumentation.
Now, if the above quoted poster does not want that source to be questioned, it may very well be that it has nothing to do with that source, but rather that he wishes us to assume and blindly accept what he believes to be true. Sorry, but that does not work for everyone. In fact, we totally reject it.
Posted July 18th, 2009 at 10:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The fix to the health care is issue is major and just because it has taken a long time to be adequately addressed, it does not mean that once it begins to be addressed it has to be resolved in a few weeks.”
The issue has been around for decades. It is nothing new. Unfortunately, those who want “no change” always ask for “more time”, and that is why nothing ever gets done. There is that fact, and that those who see only their own parochial interests at stake do not want change and, they will do everything in their power to prevent it from happening, no matter what is the eventual cost. They are like the passengers on the upper deck of the Titanic, who are in constant denial that the ship is sinking. “See, my feet aren’t wet, so the ship can’t be sinking.”
Posted July 18th, 2009 at 11:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Two more posts from Laitres that say absolutely nothing.
He dismisses the op-ed piece, and the points that it raises, because it was published in a paper where the editorial board does not agree with his left wing views.
So, following his way of thinking, those who are not left wingers should not comment on what is written in the NY Times or the Washington Post, or what is said on CNN, MSNBC, NPR, CBS, ABC, or NBC, since those are all liberal media outlets. All we should do whenever anything is said or printed there is simply dismiss the source as unreliable and leave it at that.
Of course, most of us won’t do that. Most of us are, unlike Laitres, willing to discuss the issues no matter who raises them. Most of us, unlike Leitres, are not afraid to take a stand and provide an argument in its support. Most of us, unlike Laitres, do not look for excuses to run when challenged.
Posted July 18th, 2009 at 11:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, don’t expect to get milk from a toad. There are limits to one’s capacity, and this is what you are observing. Your big mistake was your statement “OK, let’s look at facts.”
Posted July 18th, 2009 at 12:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dr. Wright: “..don’t expect to get milk from a toad. There are limits to one’s capacity, and this is what you are observing.”
And, some of us are able to recognize that also. Some want to “discuss” facts, yet could care less about what the real facts are, or their significane. That is why we see references such as those of the above poster’s. Unable to accept questioning of their own assumptions about what the “facts” they would quote are, and not willing to question any differing interpretation, what they then do is go “ad hominem” or totally evade the issue. Then, of course, they turn right around and blame others for doing what they themselves are doing, in the hope that those who chose to do otherwise, will “just go away.”
A person with less patience might be offended by such tactics and actually cede the pulpit, but others of us won’t. And, that is probably what frustrates most of the ‘true believers’ we encounter in these forums.
The only question reallyr raised was, given the recent history of the “source” quoted as the basis for discussion, how reliable can it be? It would appear that, even to the most ardent believer, that should have been brought into quesion.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.