>The Republicans are trying to tell us that the health-care-reform bill
>is a hugely expensive trespass against freedom and liberty.
Uhm ... it is.
>1) The health-care-reform bill will help working and middle class
>Americans to afford quality health insurance via hundreds of billions
>of dollars in subsidies. For example, families of four earning $54,000
>will see their insurance premiums reduced by around $10,000 per year.
>That's a lot. Who in their right mind would turn down a government
>check for $10,000? Every year. That's a full semester of state
>university tuition, among other things.
Instead of addressing the problem of WHY is Health Care (and the
insurance -- which isn't really insurance, but a health care payment
plan -- associated) so expensive to begin with ... Government is going
to STEAL resources from the people and then dole out this plunder
for bloated premiums to pay for bloated services.
How is this good?
>2) Contrary to the "Obama-is-spending-too-much" meme, the bill does
>not increase the deficit. According to the nonpartisan CBO, the bill
>cuts the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Put another way, all
>that scaremongering about the cost of the bill is just that:
>scaremongering. The bill pays for itself and then some.
How accurate is the politically motivated CBO? You might start with some
of those Medicare Projections which were 100s of times LESS than reality.
The impacts of this bill -- if Government efforts prior are an
indicator -- will
be a far GREATER detriment than any of the projections in that direction.
>3) There are no enforcement mechanisms for the super-duper terrifying
>individual mandate. If you choose not to buy insurance when the
>mandate takes effect in 2014, and are consequently fined $695, there
>is no means of actually enforcing the payment of that penalty. No
>liens, levies, no jail, no Obamacare Goons swooping into your house
>like America-hating Kenyan ninjas. Nothing will happen to you.
>Nothing. So, you know, chill out about the mandate.
Except that the Big Bad IRS is the stated enforcer.
>The question about "Obamacare," then, is very simply: Why are the
>Republicans against reducing the deficit by $130 billion, and why are
>they against more accessible and affordable healthcare? I have no
>idea, other than they're taking the childish opposite position of what
>was passed (despite the deficit reduction and subsidies for the middle
>class, etc.). Oh, and they call it "Obamacare," which is spooky and
>one letter away from being "Osamacare." Scary, but entirely without
>substance.
That this will NOT provide 'cheaper' health care notwithstanding, the
Republicans are not happy with ObamaCare because it is not referred
to as NixonCare or BushCare or McCainCare.
>Oh, and speaking of the deficit, the Republicans are lying to voters
>about the Democratic handling of the deficit as well. It turns out the
The DEFICIT is a meaningless red herring. It amounts to the money
stolen by government versus the money spent by government. Want
to reduce the deficit? Steal MORE.
>Circling back, it's important to repeat: President Obama and the
>congressional Democrats cut the deficit. Fact: The first Obama budget
>was billions less than the final Bush budget. And, in the process,
In the scheme of things it would be more accurate to simply denote
that the Democrats budget was PENNIES less ...
>President Obama's policies have pushed the DJIA from 6,000 to 11,000;
>his policies have turned Bush-era job losses into job creation; and
>pulled the nation from the brink of another Great Depression.
Government cannot create jobs. Making MORE tax dollar leeches is not
helpful.
>By the same token, why are they against the stimulus? They really
>won't say other than to screech about how expensive it was. But,
Not certain if the Republican reasoning is simply being distorted in
THIS attack piece, but one merely need to READ and UNDERSTAND
Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy to readily KNOW how much of a
scam this 'stimulus' nonsense truly is.
Regard$,
--MJ
The main issue in present-day political struggles
is whether society should be organized on the basis
of private ownership of the means of production
(capitalism, the market system) or on the basis
of public control of the means of production
(socialism, communism, planned economy). Capitalism
means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers
in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters
in political matters. Socialism means full government
control of every sphere of the individual's life and
the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its
capacity as central board of production management.
There is no compromise possible between these two
systems. Contrary to popular fallacy there is no
middle way, no third system possible as a pattern
of a permanent social order. The citizens must
choose between capitalism and socialism or, as
many Americans say, between the American and the
Russian way of life. -- Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy [1944]
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment