The Ignorance, Lying, and Growing Nonsense Of Obama Care
The Ignorance, Lying, and Growing Nonsense Of Obama Care
Many Americans believe that Obama’s health care reform effort (“Obama Care”) could be one of the worse pieces of legislation ever passed and signed into law. The creators of the legislation never understood the root causes of our ever skyrocketing health care costs. Without an understanding of the underlying problems, there is virtually no chance of developing and implementing a coherent and effective solution.
Before looking at the latest nonsense to come out about the law, let’s reviews what some experts have said in the past:
- In a March 1, 2010 article in Fortune magazine, an interview of Dr. Delose Cosgrove, CEO of the renowned Cleveland Clinic, revealed the following knowledge, from a leading expert in healthcare:
Obesity accounts for at least 10% of the health care costs in the United States.
Smoking, poor diet, and lack of exercise accounts for 40% of the premature deaths in this country.
These same factors account for the 70% of the health care costs associated with chronic diseases such as heart disease in the United States.
Smoking, poor diet, and lack of exercise account for 75% of the nation’s total health care costs.
Thus, according to an expert’s view, the root causes driving our high health care costs are public health related questions: diet, exercise and smoking. Rather than attack these true causes of high costs with a public health care effort, Obama Care basically constructed a massive taxation process and bureaucracy that adds complexity and taxation without solving the underlying causes.
Need more, consider the findings from the National Academy of Sciences, an independent Federal agency:
The United States spends more on health care per person than any other country in the world.
Despite the high expenses, life expectancy in the U.S. is less than the life expectancies in many other developed countries.
Smoking and obesity are the primary factors driving the lower life expectancy, and likely higher health care costs, in this country.
More of the same. Rather than address the cause, Obama Care tries to solve the problem administratively.
But the latest research paints an even worse picture. Remember, one of the primary avowed objectives of Obama Care was to reduce the number of uninsured Americans in the United States, estimated to be between 30 and 40 million Americans. However, if you consider the following expert analyses, the legislation will fall far short of this objective also.
According to a recent study by the McKinsey Consulting Group, as published in their publication, McKinsey Quarterly, 30% of the American companies surveyed by McKinsey said they would drop their employee health care plans because under Obama Care, it is a better business decision to not carry a health care insurance program and pay the small fine than it is to continue operating a health care insurance program.
The companies in the McKinsey survey’s 30% said that even if they raised wages to compensate for dropping their healthcare plan, it would still be less expensive for the companies under Obama Care.
Mr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin is an economist and the former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). He is obviously someone with some valid credentials to examine Obama Care. He did so in a recent analysis and report that was published by the American Action Forum. His results and findings are damning to the legislation:
According to his analysis, Obama Care “is fiscally dangerous, raising the risk of higher labor (and other) taxes at a time when the job market is struggling.”
The legislation’s weak fine system provides a strong incentive for companies to stop offering their employees and retirees health care insurance coverage.
This could result in 35 million Americans, who are covered by employer provided health care insurance, being left without health care insurance.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated, badly, that only 3 million individuals who previously received coverage through their employers will get subsidized coverage through the Obama Care insurance exchanges. Thus, they are off a factor of twelve in their forecast.
By tossing 35 million more Americans into the uninsured pool, Federal subsidies will increase by over a TRILLION dollars in ten years, wiping out any perceived or touted savings Obama Care was supposed to bring to the national debt.
Obama Care will have the greatest impact from a marginal tax rate perspective on the lowest earning workers in the country.
The analysis reviewed individual company feelings towards Obama Care, noting that Caterpillar is on record of saying that Obama Care would reduce their employee health care costs by 70% if they dropped their employee and retiree insurance programs. AT&T has said it’s annual health care insurance costs would drop from .4 billion to only 0 million since it would be far less expensive to drop their insurance program and pay the fine for not having one.
Great, a piece of legislation that is supposed to reduce the number of Americans without health care insurance will likely increase the number of Americans without health care insurance by tens of millions of people. These analyses were not done by Republicans or Tea Party advocates. McKinsey is a highly respected corporate consulting firm with a long history of high powered analysis and Mr. Holtz-Eakin has the experience and education to back up his work.
]]>
Let’s look at the numbers a slightly different way. Obama Care advocates claimed that upwards of 40 million Americans did not have health care insurance. But there are subsets within that 40 million. Some more affluent people could afford to buy insurance but decided not to since they feel they could cover health care costs with out of pocket cash as the need arose. Some of the 40 million were found to be sons and daughters of the more affluent and knew that their parents could pay for their health care expenses. Some of the 40 million were older Americans who had not yet gotten around to signing up for Medicare.
Thus, even if you buy the 40 million number, the actual, truly needy Americans who did not have health care insurance, was substantially below 40 million, let’s conservatively say it was 35 million. 35 million Americans out of a total population of of 311 million Americans is about 11%. Thus, in order to fix the problem for 11% of the population, we changed the world for upwards of 89% of Americans.
But wait! Out of the 89%, Obama Care is likely to result in another 35 million Americans losing their health care coverage. Ridiculous and nonsensical. How can anyone say this is good legislation?
Want more? According to the statistics in this past Sunday’s St. Petersburg Times, there is another set of numbers out that show how stupid Obama Care is. The numbers were within a St. Petersburg Times article on how companies are trying to get their employees involved in exercise and other healthy activities.
The statistics from the article claim that 15% of the population drives 85% of the nation’s health care costs, 5% of the population drives 60% of the cost, and 25% of the population have no healthcare costs. Would it not have been a better strategy to focus on these small groups of Americans that cause the vast majority of health care costs and fix their problems rather than upsetting the entire health care system in the country? Nonsense again.
How simple could it be? Address the underlying drivers of high health care costs: obesity, bad diets, smoking, and lack of exercise. Understand who is the primary drivers of health care costs and resources and fix their problems. Instead, we get a cumbersome, complex, expensive, and incoherent 2,500 page piece of legislation that addresses none of the underlying problems while destroying health care insurance for tens of millions.
Which brings us to the other two topics in our title, ignorance and lying. President Obama stated over and over that Americans who currently had health care insurance through their company could keep it under Obama Care. Was he that ignorant of reality to understand that if a company could save millions or billions of dollars by dropping health insurance that they would do so? Who came up with the measly fines that companies would pay if they dropped health care insurance? Could he and Pelsoi and Reid have been that ignorant of simple business principles?
Or was he lying? Did he actually understand that by passing Obama Care, tens of millions of Americans workers would lose health care insurance but lied about the likely outcome in order to get the legislation passed? Nonsense, lying or ignorant, hardly traits we would want in the President of the United States.
Much like the lost war on drugs, failing public education, the lack of an energy program, the lack of an immigration policy, and a myriad of other problems that have been unsolved for decades, the lack of problem solving skills of the American political class are on constant display. That is why we need to take steps to fix our political processes so that we finally staff Washington with people that know how to define and solve problems.
Like the brilliant Dean Wormer quote from the movie Animal House, “Fat, drunk, and and stupid is no way to go through life,” I am getting tired of living the political class equivalent: “Ignorant, lying, and nonsensical is no way to run a country.”
Walter “Bruno” Korschek is the author of the book, “Love My Country, Loathe My Government. – Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class,” which is available at www.loathemygovernment.com and online at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Our daily dialog on freedom in American can be joined at www.loathemygovernment.blogspot.com.
Question by Jazmin: What are some good Business publications?
I have to start doing editing in my job for various European (mostly) and American business submissions. I was told to read the McKinsey Quarterly. Any other recommendations? Preferrably online as I’m abroad in Asia and it’s hard to find magazines here. Thanks!
Best answer:
Answer by Ty H
Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, Money, Forbes are all good publications
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by xblackmindx -
September 10, 2011 at 1:09 am
Categories: Mckinsey Quarterly Tags: Care, Growing, health care reform, Ignorance, Insurance, life expectancies, Lying, Nonsense, Obama, ugg
Bank Account Searches: Are They Permissible?
Bank Account Searches: Are They Permissible?
Lawyers and other professionals contact our office every day and ask whether it is permissible for an asset search company or private investigator to conduct bank, stock, bond or mutual fund account searches on a subject. The short answer is “no”.
Not only is conducting a bank, stock, bond, or mutual fund search considered to be an invasion of privacy, but it is also considered to be an unfair and deceptive business practice. More important, any company that claims to be capable of conducting bank account searches in this day and age, (and there are a number of them) is doing so by using false pretenses. If that was not enough, the Board of Bar Overseers has also come out and stated that an attorney, who has a bank account search conducted on their behalf, could be held vicariously liable. Finally, the Attorney General’s offices, in a large number of states, have aggressively sought and obtained injunctions and heavy fines against asset search companies who conduct bank account searches.
Therefore, when you have to satisfy your “due diligence” on behalf of your clients by conducting an asset search, contact a reputable company who knows what is permissible and what is not. At Asset Searches Plus, Inc., we only use trained asset recovery attorneys to conduct asset searches. We provide our clients with access to each and every asset and liability of a subject that is permissible to obtain, in all 50 states, so that our clients can receive the necessary data to fully satisfy their due diligence within (1) to (3) business days.
The long answer as to why you are no longer able to conduct a bank account search is that on November 12, 1999, President Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act into law. Since then, using false pretenses to obtain bank account information, from either banks or bank customers, is considered a federal crime.
The law applies to all banks and financial institutions, including stock brokerage firms, insurance companies, loan companies, credit card issuers, and credit bureaus.
The Act applies to those persons who use false pretenses and any third party requesting the information when it is known, or should be known, that false pretenses will be used.
Certain limited exemptions do apply. Exempt parties include law enforcement agencies, financial institutions, insurance companies conducting claims related investigations, and state-licensed private investigators that are attempting to collect delinquent child support. However, in this case, private investigators must have a court order in hand authorizing the bank investigation.
Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 – An Excerpt:
Subtitle B–Fraudulent Access to Financial Information
SEC. 521. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
(a) PROHIBITION ON OBTAINING CUSTOMER INFORMATION BY FALSE PRETENSES- It shall be a violation of this subtitle for any person to obtain or attempt to obtain, or cause to be disclosed or attempt to cause to be disclosed to any person, customer information of a financial institution relating to another person–
(1) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution;
(2) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to a customer of a financial institution; or
(3) by providing any document to an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution, knowing that the document is forged, counterfeit, lost, or stolen, was fraudulently obtained, or contains a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.
(b) PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF A PERSON TO OBTAIN CUSTOMER INFORMATION FROM FINANCIAL INSTITUTION UNDER FALSE PRETENSES – It shall be a violation of this subtitle to request a person to obtain customer information of a financial institution, knowing that the person will obtain, or attempt to obtain, the information from the institution in any manner described in subsection (a).
(c) NONAPPLICABILITY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES- No provision of this section shall be construed so as to prevent any action by a law enforcement agency, or any officer, employee, or agent of such agency, to obtain customer information of a financial institution in connection with the performance of the official duties of the agency.
(d) NONAPPLICABILITY TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN CERTAIN CASES – No provision of this section shall be construed so as to prevent any financial institution, or any officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution, from obtaining customer information of such financial institution in the course of–
(1) testing the security procedures or systems of such institution for maintaining the confidentiality of customer information;
(2) investigating allegations of misconduct or negligence on the part of any officer, employee, or agent of the financial institution; or
(3) recovering customer information of the financial institution which was obtained or received by another person in any manner described in subsection (a) or (b).
(e) NONAPPLICABILITY TO INSURANCE INSTITUTIONS FOR INVESTIGATION OF INSURANCE FRAUD – No provision of this section shall be construed so as to prevent any insurance institution, or any officer, employee, or agency of an insurance institution, from obtaining information as part of an insurance investigation into criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or material nondisclosure that is authorized for such institution under State law, regulation, interpretation, or order.
(f) NONAPPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN TYPES OF CUSTOMER INFORMATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS- No provision of this section shall be construed so as to prevent any person from obtaining customer information of a financial institution that otherwise is available as a public record filed pursuant to the securities laws (as defined in section 3(a) (47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).
(g) NONAPPLICABILITY TO COLLECTION OF CHILD SUPPORT JUDGMENTS – No provision of this section shall be construed to prevent any State-licensed private investigator, or any officer, employee, or agent of such private investigator, from obtaining customer information of a financial institution, to the extent reasonably necessary to collect child support from a person adjudged to have been delinquent in his or her obligations by a Federal or State court, and to the extent that such action by a State-licensed private investigator is not unlawful under any other Federal or State law or regulation, and has been authorized by an order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
SEC. 522. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT.
(a) ENFORCEMENT BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION- Except as provided in subsection (b), compliance with this subtitle shall be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission in the same manner and with the same power and authority as the Commission has under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to enforce compliance with such Act.
(b) ENFORCEMENT BY OTHER AGENCIES IN CERTAIN CASES-
(1) IN GENERAL- Compliance with this subtitle shall be enforced under–
(A) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the case of–
(i) national banks, and Federal branches and Federal agencies of foreign banks, by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency;
(ii) member banks of the Federal Reserve System (other than national
banks), branches and agencies of foreign banks (other than Federal
branches, Federal agencies, and insured State branches of foreign banks), commercial lending companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, and organizations operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act, by the Board;
(iii) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (other
than members of the Federal Reserve System and national nonmember banks) and insured State branches of foreign banks, by the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and
(iv) savings associations the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, by the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision; and
(B) the Federal Credit Union Act, by the Administrator of the National Credit Union Administration with respect to any Federal credit union.
(2) VIOLATIONS OF THIS SUBTITLE TREATED AS VIOLATIONS OF
OTHER LAWS- For the purpose of the exercise by any agency referred to in paragraph (1) of its powers under any Act referred to in that paragraph, a violation of this subtitle shall be deemed to be a violation of a requirement imposed under that Act. In addition to its powers under any provision of law specifically referred to in paragraph (1), each of the agencies referred to in that paragraph may exercise, for the purpose of enforcing compliance with this subtitle, any other authority conferred on such agency by law.
SEC. 523. CRIMINAL PENALTY.
(a) IN GENERAL- Whoever knowingly and intentionally violates, or knowingly and intentionally attempts to violate, section 521 shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) ENHANCED PENALTY FOR AGGRAVATED CASES- Whoever violates, or attempts to violate, section 521 while violating another law of the United States or as part of a pattern of any illegal activity involving more than 0,000 in a 12-month period shall be fined twice the amount provided in subsection (b)(3) or (c)(3) (as the case may be) of section 3571 of title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
SEC. 524. RELATION TO STATE LAWS.
(a) IN GENERAL- This subtitle shall not be construed as superseding, altering, or affecting the statutes, regulations, orders, or interpretations in effect in any State, except to the extent that such statutes, regulations, orders, or interpretations are inconsistent with the provisions of this subtitle, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency.
(b) GREATER PROTECTION UNDER STATE LAW- For purposes of this section, a State statute, regulation, order, or interpretation is not inconsistent with the provisions of this subtitle if the protection such statute, regulation, order, or interpretation affords any person is greater than the protection provided under this subtitle as determined by the Federal Trade Commission, after consultation with the agency or authority with jurisdiction under section 522 of either the person that initiated the complaint or that is the subject of the complaint, on its own motion or upon the petition of any interested party.
SEC. 525. AGENCY GUIDANCE.
In furtherance of the objectives of this subtitle, each Federal banking agency (as defined in section 3(z) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act), the National Credit Union Administration, and the Securities and Exchange Commission or self-regulatory organizations, as appropriate, shall review regulations and guidelines applicable to financial institutions under their respective jurisdictions and shall prescribe such revisions to such regulations and guidelines as may be necessary to ensure that such financial institutions have policies, procedures, and controls in place to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of customer financial information and to deter and detect activities proscribed under section 521.
SEC. 526. REPORTS.
(a) REPORT TO THE CONGRESS- Before the end of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, Federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, appropriate Federal law enforcement agencies, and appropriate State insurance regulators, shall submit to the Congress a report on the following:
(1) The efficacy and adequacy of the remedies provided in this subtitle in addressing attempts to obtain financial information by fraudulent means or by false pretenses.
(2) Any recommendations for additional legislative or regulatory action to address threats to the privacy of financial information created by attempts to obtain information by fraudulent means or false pretenses.
(b) ANNUAL REPORT BY ADMINISTERING AGENCIES- The Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General shall submit to Congress an annual report on number and disposition of all enforcement actions taken pursuant to this subtitle.
SEC. 527. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) CUSTOMER- The term `customer’ means, with respect to a financial institution, any person (or authorized representative of a person) to whom the financial institution provides a product or service, including that of acting as a fiduciary.
(2) CUSTOMER INFORMATION OF A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION- The term `customer information of a financial institution’ means any information maintained by or for a financial institution which is derived from the relationship between the financial institution and a customer of the financial institution and is identified with the customer.
(3) DOCUMENT- The term `document’ means any information in any form.
(4) FINANCIAL INSTITUTION-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `financial institution’ means any institution engaged in the business of providing financial services to customers who maintain a credit, deposit, trust, or other financial account or relationship with the institution.
(B) CERTAIN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS SPECIFICALLY
INCLUDED- The term `financial institution’ includes any depository institution (as defined in section 19(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act), any broker or dealer, any investment adviser or investment company, any insurance company, any loan or finance company, any credit card issuer or operator of a credit card system, and any consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on
consumers on a nationwide basis (as defined in section 603(p) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act).
(C) SECURITIES INSTITUTIONS- For purposes of subparagraph (B)–
(i) the terms `broker’ and `dealer’ have the same meanings as given in section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c);
(ii) the term `investment adviser’ has the same meaning as given in section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80b-2(a)); and
(iii) the term `investment company’ has the same meaning as given in
section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3).
(D) CERTAIN PERSONS AND ENTITIES SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED-
The term `financial institution’ does not include any person or entity with respect to any financial activity that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under the Commodity Exchange Act and does not include the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation or any entity chartered and operating under the Farm Credit Act of 1971.
(E) FURTHER DEFINITION BY REGULATION- The Federal Trade
Commission, after consultation with Federal banking agencies and the Securities and Exchange Commission, may prescribe regulations clarifying or describing the types of institutions which shall be treated as financial institutions for purposes of this subtitle.
Written by eamaral
Attorney
Question by Mi: The amount which a commercial bank currently has available to lend is determined by its:?
i think its required reserves however i searched for the definition,it defines that the bank need to have a certain amount of money on hand and that money cannot be lent out.
can someone help me?
A) required reserves
B) excess reserves
C) outstanding loans
D) outstanding demand deposits
Best answer:
Answer by John M
it would be excess reserves. Required reserves cannot be lent out. They are held in reserve as part of the arrangements to prevent a run on banks in the event of unusual occurrences in the local or national markets.
Add your own answer in the comments!
1 comment - What do you think?
Posted by xblackmindx -
September 4, 2011 at 1:08 am
Categories: Commercial Bank Tags: Account, Bank, bank account search, board of bar overseers, contains, Insurance, mutual fund search, Permissible, Searches, They
Small Business Insurance Coverage
Small Business Insurance Coverage
Have you just created your own company? Are you ready to start working and making your money? Before you do, here are a few types of small business insurance you need to have.
The entire idea of insurance is to purchase coverage for risks you cannot afford to pay for out of pocket. In other words, you’d rather pay the monthly payments for coverage than to pay for the damage after a fire or incident. You should make sure that you bring a respectable agent into the life of your company as well. They can create a package that can meet all of your needs in one.
You will definitely want to first look into good property and liability policies. Property insurance entails things like your office space and its contents. Everything in the space that you own such as equipment, software, furniture, and appliances can be factored in. Flood and earthquake coverage is also available depending on your area.
A liability policy will protect you from the consequences of fires that are caused by negligence on your part. Things like general accidents that can occur and malpractice suits can also be added.
There are also insurances tailored to providing for and attracting employees. Worker’s compensation is mandatory by law if you have any employees at all. This will cover the costs and damages in the event a worker is injured on the job. Offering good health insurance options is good for getting employees as well. It is often difficult to find health coverage on your own outside of work. You could also look into auto insurance for any company vehicles.
Floods, fires, lawsuits, and many other things can ruin a company. Small business insurance is extremely important to protect your investment.
Don’t hesitate to find a reputable agent and buy a custom structured policy.
If you operate vehicles for your business, then you need business car insurance Also know as commercial vehicle insurance this type of business insurance coverage protects you from any liability that comes from operating company vehicles.
Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by xblackmindx -
August 24, 2011 at 2:35 am
Categories: Small Business Investment Company Tags: Business, Coverage, Insurance, Small
