There was a lot of channel surfing during the mid-term election coverage last night in an attempt to stay on top of the results.
One particular comment caught my attention.
Unfortunately, I do not recall which Democrat was chastizing which Republican saying, basically, that the Republican candidate was "not for the people" as that person was dead-set against earmarks, defined right then and there as those funds that "bring money to states."
Two years ago candidate Obama promised Main Street USA he would not pass legislation with earmarks attached. Taxpayers very much liked that idea, but that particular promise was not kept.
To the thought...
How much money has been spent by Capitol Hill, even just during the last several years, on earmarks to buy votes for a larger piece of legislation?
If that amount of money, which surely is a rather large number, had not been attached to buy votes then would it not be safe to say that big government would not be quite as big?
In order to pay for earmarks that the Senate and House tack on to bills the federal government requires more money in order to fund those pieces of pork. The same money that, if Main Streeters did not have to send vast sums to Washington DC to cover vote-buying, would be spent bolstering the economy.
Individuals would spend that money not sent to DC on consumable goods and for services that they might need or want. Companies, large and small, would spend it on expansion of their business, which, in turn, generally means more jobs. And a healthier economy.
When firms and people spend more money states receive greater revenues through all manner of taxes and fees.
Any politician who says that not backing earmarks means that a person is not "for the people" is spouting wasteful hot air and that particular elected representative should look for other means of employment.
Earmarks are NOT for the people.
Earmarks are a means for Congress to buy votes for legislation that, quite obviously, cannot stand on its own merits.
Earmarks are wasteful spending and a continued expansion of excessive government requiring more and more funds with which to operate.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
House Healthcare & The Bill of Rights
In the two previous posts, there were quotes from retired Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, a man who has read the entirety of House Bill 3200, regarding what the proposed legislation contained in the Bill passed by the House contains and how three of our original 10 Rights could potentially be destroyed.
Here are two more of those Rigths potentially devastated:
"The 9th Amendment provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;
"The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
"This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights.
"Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to 'be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.' If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
"For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us."
Taken from us...
Main Street USA, please wake up!
If the healthcare bill as proposed by either the House or Senate passes (with ample pork that President Obama promised each and every American would never be in legislation that he signs) our Rights are lost.
Our Privacy is lost.
This is the ultimate in political corruption...far worse than just accepting bribes. Those voting in favor of this legislation on Capitol Hill are committing Treason at the highest level.
If it passes, America as you know it (or have known it) will simply cease to exist.
Is it any wonder why there are Democratic Senators who have decided to retire.
Why should they worry about another election and the possibility of losing when America finds out that the country has been sold down the river.
They have a VERY cushy retirement (AND benefits!).
Unlike most of us.
Thomas Jefferson said this, "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Here are two more of those Rigths potentially devastated:
"The 9th Amendment provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;
"The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
"This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights.
"Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to 'be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.' If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
"For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us."
Taken from us...
Main Street USA, please wake up!
If the healthcare bill as proposed by either the House or Senate passes (with ample pork that President Obama promised each and every American would never be in legislation that he signs) our Rights are lost.
Our Privacy is lost.
This is the ultimate in political corruption...far worse than just accepting bribes. Those voting in favor of this legislation on Capitol Hill are committing Treason at the highest level.
If it passes, America as you know it (or have known it) will simply cease to exist.
Is it any wonder why there are Democratic Senators who have decided to retire.
Why should they worry about another election and the possibility of losing when America finds out that the country has been sold down the river.
They have a VERY cushy retirement (AND benefits!).
Unlike most of us.
Thomas Jefferson said this, "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Giving Up $155 Billion?
It is hard for me to comprehend that hospitals are willingly going to “give up” over $155 Billion in future Medicare and Medicaid payments as is right now being reported all over the web.
Granted this is over a span of several years, but given that the health care proposal is hundreds of pages long I wonder if anyone really, with 100% certainty, knows every little financial detail involved in nationalizing health care.
So, let’s take a quick look at this $155 Billion hospitals are “giving up.”
As reported, there would be a reduction of federal payments of between $40 and $50 Billion that hospitals would normally receive for treating low income and uninsured individuals. But from what I read, that does not start until 2015. Hmmm.
And, is that really a loss if this national health care coverage plan is intended to provide care for currently uninsured individuals? Does that mean that hospitals “give up” $40 Billion here to receive an equal amount there? And, on top of that, start receiving it earlier? I think more information and, certainly, clarification is needed and required.
Then there is anticipated to be $100 Billion in “savings” that comes from “slowing down” increases in Medicare payments to hospitals.
Not having all of that paperwork here in front of me I am not sure exactly how that works, other than surmising there must be some sort of built-in annual increase in Medicare payments that is going to be slowly reduced in size.
Of course, if that purported savings of $100 Billion is stretched out over a decade or so it really does not seem to be that much of a savings, although it is between 5% and 10% of what the projected national health care system will cost Main Street USA.
Of the other hand, government budgets, unfortunately, do not have a sterling reputation for coming in at what is projected.
However, and this may be a huge however, if the public health insurance plan (as currently envisioned by the Finance Committee) passes, it will allow higher future hospital reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid.
Wait a minute . . .
Are the higher reimbursement rates essentially a trade-off for this $100 Billion?
If so, why are these provisions even in the legislation?
Why is it that Congress cannot write and enact less complicated and cumbersome legislation?
Do they think they are getting paid by each and every word that they write? That was quite snide, I will admit. But, I do not, for the life of me, understand why Congress must write volumes and volumes of pages, books really, to become law. That said, back to my original point.
Are we (Main Street USA) really going to save anything by asking hospitals to “give up” $155 Billion when it seems that we may be handing them an equivalent amount in another way. (Note: I have not read what the fine print says about all these financial dealings.)
Or, is this some kind of Public Relations ploy to make it seem like hospitals are taking some sort of burden off of Main Street USA and that the administration is negotiating really hard on our behalf.
At this point, only time will tell.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Granted this is over a span of several years, but given that the health care proposal is hundreds of pages long I wonder if anyone really, with 100% certainty, knows every little financial detail involved in nationalizing health care.
So, let’s take a quick look at this $155 Billion hospitals are “giving up.”
As reported, there would be a reduction of federal payments of between $40 and $50 Billion that hospitals would normally receive for treating low income and uninsured individuals. But from what I read, that does not start until 2015. Hmmm.
And, is that really a loss if this national health care coverage plan is intended to provide care for currently uninsured individuals? Does that mean that hospitals “give up” $40 Billion here to receive an equal amount there? And, on top of that, start receiving it earlier? I think more information and, certainly, clarification is needed and required.
Then there is anticipated to be $100 Billion in “savings” that comes from “slowing down” increases in Medicare payments to hospitals.
Not having all of that paperwork here in front of me I am not sure exactly how that works, other than surmising there must be some sort of built-in annual increase in Medicare payments that is going to be slowly reduced in size.
Of course, if that purported savings of $100 Billion is stretched out over a decade or so it really does not seem to be that much of a savings, although it is between 5% and 10% of what the projected national health care system will cost Main Street USA.
Of the other hand, government budgets, unfortunately, do not have a sterling reputation for coming in at what is projected.
However, and this may be a huge however, if the public health insurance plan (as currently envisioned by the Finance Committee) passes, it will allow higher future hospital reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid.
Wait a minute . . .
Are the higher reimbursement rates essentially a trade-off for this $100 Billion?
If so, why are these provisions even in the legislation?
Why is it that Congress cannot write and enact less complicated and cumbersome legislation?
Do they think they are getting paid by each and every word that they write? That was quite snide, I will admit. But, I do not, for the life of me, understand why Congress must write volumes and volumes of pages, books really, to become law. That said, back to my original point.
Are we (Main Street USA) really going to save anything by asking hospitals to “give up” $155 Billion when it seems that we may be handing them an equivalent amount in another way. (Note: I have not read what the fine print says about all these financial dealings.)
Or, is this some kind of Public Relations ploy to make it seem like hospitals are taking some sort of burden off of Main Street USA and that the administration is negotiating really hard on our behalf.
At this point, only time will tell.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)