Knock, knock puddin’ head…it's a TAX!

This Sunday, PBO set out on the TV talk show marathon…but one stop in particular is of interest. In his interview with George Stephanopoulos, PBO claimed that the penalty for not carrying insurance is not a tax. PBO even made this statement: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.” Oh, so now the dictionary is a place where we go to “stretch” the truth? WOW! Maybe I missed that day in class…

But let’s take a look at the health care bills to see what they actually say. Huh…it seems that page 29, line 1 of Baucus’ bill disagrees with PBO. “Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax”…seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps PBO was talking about the original HR 3200…let’s take a look. Oh…whoops! I guess not…here on page 110, lines 1-6, there’s a section entitled: “TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS NOT OBTAINING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE. The amounts received in the Treasury under section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to requirement of health insurance coverage for individuals).” Wait a minute, that amends the tax code…I’d pretty much call that a tax—not to mention that the bill refers to it as a “tax.” And then on page 167, there is an entire section dedicated to just this subject: “SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.” Perhaps PBO hasn’t read this bill either…as well as a few hundred other members of congress.

Mr. President, what is being proposed is, indeed, a “TAX” on the American people…that’s an indisputable fact. Is that really the wisest course under our current economic conditions? Raise taxes while the economy is down? Seriously? Perhaps you should consider what the majority of the country (the 90% of us who are not in the $180K and up bracket) would be facing with a tax increase. And then there’s that pesky little statement you made in New Hampshire in 2008: “I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” What about those who make less than $250K a year and choose (of their own volition) NOT to have health insurance, but to pay for medical costs out of their own pocket—thereby NOT being a drag on the insurance system? There are many people who opt out for one reason or another (somewhere between 9.1 million and 20.8 million if you combine the figures for 18-34 year olds and those who make over $75K per year as reported by FactCheck.org—http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/) and you propose to sentence them to a tax increase if they don’t get health insurance that the almighty government (I think Orwell called it “Big Brother”) doesn’t like? Sorry, but that flies directly in the face of your pledge!

If you wish to be consistent with your promise on 9/12/2008, you cannot possibly be in favor of any measure that will obligate anyone to enroll in “acceptable” health insurance or face a tax increase. Creating a safety net is for "last resort" NOT as the standard "everyone must measure up to"…there is NO NEED for a health plan that covers everybody…cover those who need it and them ONLY! That is where my bone of contention lies with all of this...I'm not against helping those who need the help; rather, I am against "helping" those who have no need of it and have not asked for it! Forcing those of us who do not "toe the line" with Big Brother into an extra tax IS penalizing our rights as citizens...attempting to control behavior is not what this country is about. It is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...not penalties, proscription, and the limitation of freedoms!

I'm still waiting...

I’m still waiting to understand why we need Obama Care for EVERY SINGLE US citizen when only a small part of the population is affected…anyone? ANYONE? ANYONE AT ALL?!? Why is it that we have a problem that affects 15-20% of the population (and I’m using PBO’s numbers here—I happen to think that it’s much less than 15-20%—but I’ll use PBO’s numbers for the sake of argument) and the solution that’s being proposed covers 100% of the population? There’s a word that's used for that concept…OVERKILL!

In the 8/3/2009 CNN poll, 83% of respondents said they’re “generally satisfied with the health care they receive”, 74% said they’re “generally satisfied with their health care coverage”, and approximately 59% said they’re satisfied with the cost of their health care coverage. I happen to agree that health care costs a bit too much—but that’s a discussion for a later blog…i.e. taking down state mandated health insurance barriers which allows a person living in MN (for instance) to choose between only 7 or 8 different insurance companies when there are more than 1300 insurance companies in the US (it’s called “competition”)…so I tend to agree that the cost is a bit too much. But back to PBO…

When the Pentagon proposes to spend more money than they NEED, it’s called unnecessary and something that “needs to be corrected” (no argument here)…but when PBO proposes to spend more money than he NEEDS to spend on healthcare, it’s called “critical funding.” WHAT?!? Did someone take just a few too many hits of the happy juice? It’s a “20%” problem people (see my earlier caveat)! Let’s look at a 20% solution for it! Anything else is just plain STUPID!

I have 4 daughters…when we go shopping for shoes, I buy enough shoes for my 4 daughters…I don’t buy 16 extra pairs just for the heck of it! Hello McFly!

I just don't get it...maybe someone can explain it to me...I dunno, maybe PBO’s using the new math…

Capitalism vs.(?) Human Nature...

Capitalism, in its most basic form, can be summarized as exchanging one’s goods and services for the greatest possible gain. Sounds pretty selfish, right? Only looking to enrich ourselves at the expense of anyone and everyone else?

Capitalism, at its core, cannot be defined as merely an economic system (that is ignorant of the facts); rather, it is an observation of human nature. When I put my goods and services on the market, I want to find the person who will exchange with me that which is the greatest value to me. And this is where capitalism ceases to be an economic system. I may value the warm feeling I get from volunteering more than I value money…or I may value lollipops more than money—whatever it is, I will seek someone who will give me what is of greatest worth to me for the goods and services I provide—and that doesn’t necessarily have to be money.

Here’s an example…if I, as a professional singer, have two offers to perform a concert—one for the Children’s Hospital and one for the Fine Line, then I have a choice to make. If the Children’s Hospital has offered me $2000 to perform, but the Fine Line has offered me $5000 to perform, now I must decide which of these is of greater value to me. If I decide that $2000 plus the good feeling I get from performing for kids at Children’s Hospital who are very ill is worth more to me than the $5000 that the Fine Line offered, then I choose that which is of the greatest worth to me—the $2000 and good feelings. THAT, my friends, is a textbook description of capitalism!

As I seek to exchange the greatest value for the goods and services I can provide, there is nothing that stipulates that my compensation must be monetary. I may be wholly motivated by volunteering, good karma, or frog pelts. Either way…as long as I seek to get the greatest value (whether it is money or not) for the goods and services I can provide, I have acted as a capitalist…what is exchanged for my goods and services simply doesn’t matter.

Dewey Defeats Truman...

Wouldn't you kind of want to make sure you had the story right before you publish it? That is, unless you're...say...Jayson Blair (or Andrew Malcolm in this instance).

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/healthcare-reform-violence.html

It seems that--contrary to the initial report in the LA Times--the aggressor was actually a supporter of PBO's health care plan and the victim was an opponent of PBO's health care plan. Isn't that particular detail something rather important NOT to screw up--ESPECIALLY if you're the 4th largest paper in the US by circulation (behind USA Today, WSJ, & NYT)? Now granted, the LA Times did offer an update to the story (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/health-care-activist-bites-off-the-finger-of-a-counter-demonstrator.html) but not before democraticunderground.com jumped on the story too (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8622916) ...but that was before they actually checked the facts as well...DOH!

How did the article about Linda Douglass put it? Facts are stubborn things? YEP...exactly!