Thursday, January 07, 2010

Obamacare Reveals Moral Bankruptcy Of The Left

We already knew of their financial bankruptcy, but the Leftist Democrats always preened about how moral they were, and how much they cared.

Oh really?

Throughout this fight over ObamaCare, Leftist Democrat Senators have lied about the privacy of medical records....they've lied about the deficit....they've lied about the costs of health insurance premiums and how the bill will affect senior citizens. They have lied over and over to their constituents about all these issues.

That's why it's time that we tell Democrat Senators how corrupt their vote for ObamaCare really was. Obviously, they won't agree. So let each Senator make the argument that, "I am not a crook."

That argument never wins elections.

Already, more than a few Democrat Representatives and Senators are either switching parties or announcing their retirements. They know the American people are disgusted with the moral bankruptcy of the U.S. Congress -- a situation that has become obvious to anyone who watches the nightly news.

Consider the following despicable practices which were perpetrated in order to push ObamaCare through the Senate last month:

1. Bribes
* A $100 million bribe to treat Sen. Ben Nelson's state different from all others, in exchange for Ben Nelson's vote.
* A $100-300 million bribe to treat Sen. Mary Landrieu's state different from all others, in exchange for Mary Landrieu's vote.
* $10 billion for community health centers operated by groups similar to ACORN, in exchange for Sen. Bernie Sanders' vote.
* A bribe to Sen. Max Baucus not only to treat Montana different from most other states, but also a bribe in order to treat Libby, Montana, different from any other town!
* A bribe to Sen. Chris Dodd consisting of a $100 million medical center in Connecticut.
* Bribes to Sens. Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Bill Nelson, etc., etc., etc.
* In fact, there are so many bribes in the Senate version of the ObamaCare bill that the bribe-meister himself, Majority Leader Harry Reid, publicly bragged that if your senator doesn't have a bribe in this bill, it "speaks poorly" of him.

2. Extortion
* Threats to take away Sen. Joe Lieberman's chairmanship because of his opposition to the government run "public option."

3. Fraud
* Senators are claiming that the Senate-passed version reduces the deficit, even though:
a. $247 billion of the bill's costs are being snuck through in separate legislation;
b. The "savings" rely on $465 billion of Medicare "cuts," which no one believed were achievable, unless they want to concede the truth about "death panel" rationing on the elderly; and
c. The "savings" rely on making new taxes take effect 3-5 years before any of those tax monies are spent!
* Senators are claiming that the bill would make Medicare solvent -- but this claim can only be made by fraudulently double-counting the effects of the phony Medicare cuts.
* Senators are claiming that health care costs would be brought under control, when the government's own Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that costs would go up $245 billion.
* Senators are claiming that premiums would be brought under control, even though the Congressional Budget Office found that policies under the "exchange" (i.e., those policies which you would have to buy, under penalty of law) would be 10-13% more expensive than if Congress did nothing.

4. Secrecy / hiding from the public 
* The final version of the 2407-page bill wasn't revealed until less than 48 hours before Congress began voting on it.

And there is a "marriage penalty" too.Some married couples would pay thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together, under the health insurance overhaul plan pending in Congress, says the Wall Street Journal.

The built-in "marriage penalty" in both House and Senate health care bills has received scant attention. But for scores of low-income and middle-income couples, it could mean a hike of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they say "I do."
  • The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines.
  • That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single.
  • People who get their health insurance through an employer wouldn't be affected.
  • Only people that buy subsidized insurance through new exchanges set up by the legislation stand to be impacted.
  • About 17 million people would receive such subsidies in 2016 under the House plan, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.
The bills cap the annual amount people making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level must pay for health insurance premiums, ranging from 1.5 percent of income for the poorest to 11 percent at the top end, under the House plan:
  • For an unmarried couple with income of $25,000 each, combined premiums would be capped at $3,076 per year, under the House bill.
  • If the couple gets married, with a combined income of $50,000, their annual premium cap jumps to $5,160 -- a "penalty" of $2,084.
The disparity is slightly smaller in the Senate version of health care legislation, chiefly because premium subsidies in the House bill are more targeted towards low-wage earners, says the Journal:
  • Under the Senate bill, a couple with $50,000 in combined income would pay $3,450 in annual premiums if unmarried, and $5,100 if married -- a difference of $1,650.
  • Republicans say the effect on married couples whose combined income makes them ineligible for subsidies is even greater -- up to $5,000 or more -- but that is more difficult to measure because it includes assumptions about the price of insurance policies.

No comments: