January 15, 2010
Free Gov'ment Healthcare.com
A friend inspired me with a comment about the "free" health care plan coming down the pike.
(To the tune of the freecreditreport.com "restaurant" and "new car" commercials)
They say a man should always vote for the things he wants
So why are pirates running congress and taking pricy jaunts.
It's all because some liberal stole my belov'd country
Now I'm stuck in a recession throwing parties with bags of tea
Should'a gone to free gov'ment health care dot com
I could'a seen it comin' at me like an atom bomb
They monitor your credit and take away your rights
So you'll end up in poverty and cryin' in the night.
Well I was shoppin' for a health plan, which one's me?
Posted by MarkGriswold at January 15, 2010
12:34 PM | Email This
An HSA, PPO or OPP.
Too bad I didn't know that congress was whack
Cuz now they're takin' all my money and won't give it back.
F-R-E-E that spells free.
Gov'ment healthcare dot com baby
Didn't see debates on my TV
Cuz they were cancelled by Pelosi.
Now instead of having choices and all that
Dems are running up the deficit and getting really fat.
F-R-E-E that spells free,
Gov'ment healthcare dot com baby.
1. That was very clever and creative--now I'll be humming that tune all day. I'm hoping Scott Brown will win "the people's seat" in Massachusetts and maybe things will get onto the right track, and none too soon!
lol! Very funny..
What the senate is doing....not so funny. In fact, pretty disgusting with all the deals and favors and exemptions for favored groups. Face it, it's a mess!
3. I too hope this seat change does happen in Mass.!!Itsurewould change the game big time!!
4. Hey Pudge, sing it for us!
Recommendation for change in lyrics;
"It's all because some liberal stole my belov'd country."
delete the word liberal and insert either progressive or statist".
Many people's eyes glaze over when they see the words liberal - that word is so '90's. Liberalism has been ratcheted up to a more potent strain called progressivism or even statism.
Today's left (progressives/statists) go by their bible "Rules for Radicals" and take no prisoners.
Other than that, its a good start - perhaps for a tea party. BTW - I saw the definition of "teabagger" and it is gross and degrading as was the intention.
6. KDS, I've read the def. too. And frankly, when leftists use it to describe patriots, it says nothing about the patriot they're trying to put down, but it DOES speak volumes about the people using the term. Let them dirty themselves up by using it. It doesn't mean a thing to or about the people democrats are trying to use it on.
7. ..and btw, Martha Coakley--the dem who favors the corrupt Obamacare and is trying to beat republican Scott Brown for the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat in Tuesday's special election---didn't help her cause when she referred to Boston Red Sox great Curt Schilling as a "Yankees fan". I should think that should completely lose the man-vote for her in Massachusetts.
What I'll never understand is some people's disregard for the simple truth. How are we supposed to have a respectful dialog when each side is simply choosing to ignore reality?
More specifically, Mark, no one is promising "free" health care. The health care reform bill keeps existing employer-provided insurance for most Americans -- those employers will tell you that insurance isn't free. Most people who receive new coverage under Obama's plan will have to pay for health insurance through a marketplace consisting entirely of private insurance companies. The people paying those premiums and the insurance companies receiving them will tell you that this insurance isn't free.
The vast majority of Americans, in other words, will receive private insurance with private dollars paying premiums. What exactly is free about that?
9. What I'll never understand is why liberals like John don't have a sense of humor.
@9 - Mark G.,
You keep swinging the sarcasm stick and JJ keeps getting whacked. Hilarity for all ensues.
#9 - So true. At least there civility in the disagreement. The so-called free health care comes with so many other Government strings attached. It is inevitable that taxes will have to go up to pay for this Government run health insurance being forced upon us.
The health care will be essentially free for illegal aliens even more so than before when they abused the health care system in emergency rooms - don't see that slowing down at all. This will be a new entitlement to the illegals and the poor to create a larger entitlement class by the Democratic party who have morphed into corruptocrats.
Arguing about whether it is free or not is just a red herring. The main point is that it will cost all of us in the middle class who have a family, hold down a job more in the future for what will amount to less in return. When there is a $34 T debt from Medicare, the hand writing is on the wall.
We the public are being seriously short-changed on the required ingenuity that is necessary to make this reform a win-win for all, instead of a 12% win and 85% loss for Americans. Whether this shit becomes law or not, I hope that Congress pays dearly for this tyranny in the November elections.
12. To John Jensen- Hey Pal why not find out some facts b4 you hand out your liberal/ progressive/marxist bs on line! Taxes on insur. plans, taxes on medical devises, taxes on individuals, stealing money from Seniors (Medicare), fines and jail for young people who choose no health insurance -and on and on-all to subsidize strangers(these strangers may pay premiums but they will be subsidized premiums)of government's choosing. And the coupe de grace- rationing and shortages of doctors-because government won't pay doctors and producers what they're worth with stolen money. Bottom line Johnny-government doesn't produce anything-in order to give a partial free-be to one group-the wagon riders, the roof perchers, the unproductive, illegals etc. -it first must steal money(private property)from the productive people-anybody who works-or the people your party lovingly refers to as the filthy rich. Contrary to the propaganda your MARXIST teachers may have taught you in school or the propaganda the current MARXIST admin.puts out -that path historically leads to tyranny and chaos! So why not smarten up and learn to think for yourself and get your info from somewhere beside the alphabet soup NETWORKS -that are nothing but propaganda arms of the socialist party of AMERICA and the DNC (Dem. Nat. Committee).
Can you tell me of one Gov project that came in at or under cost?
You dem's say the armed forces cost to much (F-22)
So what even makes you think this mess will.
@13 Medic/Vet on January 17, 2010 09:39 AM,
There are a lot, and it would behoove you to learn.
So, let's start with one which has benefited you every day of your life in Washington state.
The Grand Coulee dam and the BPA.
But now that one has been named (again), what the heck it the point? Are you and others going to concede anything?
And the cost/schedule performance of the BPA is not some ancient relic. A simple search produces this
"Grand Coulee-Bell Project Completed
BPA has completed its two-year effort to replace 84 miles of existing 115-kV wood-pole transmission line with a new higher capacity 500-kV steel lattice line. The line runs from BPA's Bell Substation near Spokane to Grand Coulee Dam. The The project was completed 30 days ahead of schedule and $16 million under budget. The total cost of the project - line and substation work - was $159 million."
So, now that we know it is possible for government projects to perform as well or better than non-government projects, and do so over many years, how does that inform your thinking?
16. Actually Mike, that just shows that the Grand Coulee came in under the government's budget and exceeded the government's projections. It doesn't prove that it performed better than if a private company had run it. To prove your point (and I'm not saying that government has never done anything better than private industry although if it has it's pretty rare), you would need to find me a similar project run by private industry that didn't perform as well as government run industry. Even then though, chances are, the private project was probably poorly run and the company failed. And that's the point! In the private sector, when you fail, you fail (at least that was the case until Bush and Obama both decided that no longer applied). In government, when you fail you just ask (demand actually) the taxpayer for more money.
@16 WFP on January 17, 2010 11:29 AM,
Ok, back at you.
Name one private company publicly audited $100 million enhancement project that came in 10% under budget and ahead of schedule.
WFP: "In government, when you fail you just ask (demand actually) the taxpayer for more money.
Obama wins more spending cuts than Bush
"President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years. .....
An analysis by The Washington Times found that Mr. Obama was victorious in getting Congress to slash 24 programs and achieved some level of success in reducing nine other programs."
19. I don't have to name a company that came in under budget. That's not the argument I was making. The argument M/V and I and most other conservatives make is that private industry can do things cheaper and better than government. And you can't tell me with a straight face that, on average, government does thing cheaper and better than private industry, just that there are a few exceptions that prove the rule (and again, those would usually be companies that ended up failing, see point above).
20. And what does you Obama link above have to do with what I said? I said when government fails it just demands more money from the taxpayer. I didn't say that government ALWAYS fails and I didn't say that government NEVER cuts programs. So quit putting up straw man arguments.
@19 WFP on January 17, 2010 12:35 PM,
"The argument M/V and I and most other conservatives make is that private industry can do things cheaper and better than government. I don't have to name a company that came in under budget."
Right, you won't offer any evidence to support your assertion. That's what I am saying. Evidence to the contrary of your unicorn beliefs does not inform your thinking.
@20 WFP on January 17, 2010 12:39 PM,
So, you are saying that sometimes when government projects are over budget and over schedule they go back for more money? That's profound!
If only Boeing had thought to go back to its shareholders when it overran budgets and schedules.
Certainly if the assertion that private sector projects are always significantly more cost effective than government projects were true there would be a multitude of studies you could refer us to?
Interesting comment from CNBC's investing show host and former Obama supporter Jim Cramer about a Scott Brown win in MA:
"I think investors who are nervous about the dictatorship of the Pelosi proletariat will feel at ease, and we could have a gigantic rally off of a Coakley loss and a Brown win...It will be a signal that a more pro-business, less pro-labor government could be in front of us."
Please God, let it be so. The nation can't take much more of this looting, far-left radical Obama and his communist/kook (forced abortions, anybody?) cabinet members and czars.
Private projects of a massive size that came in under budget - how about the Trans-Alaskan pipeline... Google it MikeBoyScout
but don't get your info from a TARD site...
Regarding the Washington Times link: Obama wins more spending cuts than Bush...
Well that had to be some sort of joke, a poor joke even by Washinton Times standards...
Your boy Commie Obama is going to make those budget cuts look like a a fart in a hurricane before the 4th of July of this year...
@24 juandos on January 17, 2010 02:33 PM,
"Private projects of a massive size that came in under budget - how about the Trans-Alaskan pipeline... Google it MikeBoyScout but don't get your info from a TARD site..."
How about the cost/budget performance of Alyeska's construction of the The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)??
You have anything to share on that?????
Or is the best you got "Google it"?
I won't hold my breath for one example of a > or = $100 million enhancement project that came in 10% under budget and ahead of schedule.
Crickets from the unicorn believers.
First of all Mike, it's liberals who are in love with unicorns so get your hyperbolic references straight.
More importantly though, again, no one is trying to prove that private industry comes in 10% under budget and ahead of schedule most of the time. We're saying that government RARELY comes in ON BUDGET. (See examples above from M/V for starters). So if you want to have that debate then, please, enlighten us with the multitude of examples of government efficiency. If, on the other hand, you want to have a debate on how wildly efficient Boeing is then, well, I don't think you'll get too many people disagreeing with you, especially in light of the recent 787 debacle. (But I'd be willing to bet that if the US Government had decided to build the 787 it would have come in even more over budget and we probably still wouldn't have seen the thing roll out onto the tarmac, let alone fly. Evidence? Compare Boeing to Airbus and then let me know what you find out.)
@24 juandos on January 17, 2010 02:33 PM,
Ok. I googled it, and this is the footnoted citation I found of your example a Private projects of a massive size that came in under budget.
Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System
"The main construction effort lasted until 1977, ....
When the TAPS group initially proposed the pipeline in 1969, the proposed cost was $900 million, and the pipeline would be completed by 1972.
By January 1970, the projected cost had risen from $900 million to $2 billion.
In October 1973, Alyeska further refined its figures and anticipated a cost of between $3.1 billion and $3.5 billion, with the potential for a billion more.
One year later, Alyeska released its most detailed cost estimate to that point: $5.982 billion.
By June 1975, that figure had again risen to $6.4 billion. At the time, it was estimated that $3 billion of the cost rise to that point was due to inflation, while another $2 billion was due to environmental costs.
In July 1976, amid the second year of construction, the project's cost was raised to $7.7 billion. The increase, Alyeska reported, was due to material and freight costs, repairs needed to poorly built sections of pipeline, and contingency estimates.
The final construction cost was tallied at $8 billion, "
Funny. Who's the TARD? :-D
@26 WFP on January 17, 2010 04:44 PM,
What are you talking about?
Medic/Vet @14 asked for "one Gov project that came in at or under cost? " I provided one, with citation @15. I asked for a comparison from the private sector @17. You provided an "how about the Trans-Alaskan pipeline... Google it MikeBoyScout but don't get your info from a TARD site... " @24.
I provided a citation of how the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System came in over budget @26.
Now without you or anyone else answering my challenge for one example of a private enterprise, publicly audited enhancement project estimated at > or = $100 million that came in 10% under budget and ahead of schedule, you go on to assert "government RARELY comes in ON BUDGET" with nothing to support your assertion.
Seriously, this private sector is (always, sometimes) better than the public sector bullshit is 20 years old. You got nothing to back this up?
Nothing? Surely there are many comparative studies you could show?
And how about comparative studies on publicly run or highly publicly regulated health care outcomes?
29. Back on topic, don't the health care bills expand the number of people who qualify for Medicaid and Medicare? If so, isn't that expanding free health care?
The Grand Coulee Dam was a closed-ended project, having a definitive end date. Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare are open-ended, with no end-date given. You compared apples and oranges there.
The Health Care Deformation is yet another open-ended program.
The Tacoma News Tribune (not a far right rag by any means) reports on an accounting method, some would call it a scam, that shows in at least one program the Feds administer they "keep costs down" by not fully paying the bills, in this instance paying doctors full Medicare compensation.
@30 Shanghai Dan on January 18, 2010 08:31 AM,
Thanks for the reference. The Heritage Foundation's analysis you cited is from earlier this past summer and I am familiar with it. Each will draw their own conclusions, but I found the new math comparison unrealistic. Others have as well.
Frankly, comparing costs is not that hard, but the Heritage authors chose to re-define it, ergo different numbers.
this is my first visit to you Fox-want-to-be site, do I have to be rational to comment? It appears you don't to write the posts!!
ah....for starters, last time I looked shit for brains Bush was on watch when the bankers gave out loans to those who had no business getting them, and he was the first one to grab 700M from the Chinese to bail them out. The the Big O, grabbed another 750M to bail out the government that bailed out the bankers,.........so who started this nonsense?
give me a break
There is no love lost with me for Bush, but how about a little accuracy? You said "last time I looked shit for brains Bush was on watch when the bankers gave out loans to those who had no business getting them..."
Here is the reality of who is to blame for the real estate meltdown, which was the root of the current recession:
What went wrong in the real estate market?
Answer: a lethal combination of:
(1) government and interest groups (ACORN) forcing banks to write mortgage loans that their normal underwriting would not have allowed them to write (sub-prime and Alt A loans);
(2) low (negative real) interest rates that further encouraged people to buy homes they could not otherwise afford;
(3) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (primarily) bought up these loans--the banks and mortgage companies wanted to get these loans off their books, so the ability to sell them to Fannie and Freddie made their underwriting issues disappear;
(4) Fannie and Freddie, because of the implicit (now explicit) federal guarantee of their credit were able to package these loans into CMO's (Collateralized Mortgage Obligations) and sell them to the financial community, spreading this risk throughout the financial system; and
(5) the impact of "mark to market" that came out of the Sarbanes-Oxley, post Enron, legislation which required these financial institutions to write down these assets to what someone would pay to buy those assets (in a panic mode where NO ONE was buying them) rather than looking at the discounted cash flow.
Now as to assigning blame--in order of these 5 issues:
(1) is all on the Democrats, and especially Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The Community Reinvestment Act, passed by Democrats under Jimmy Carter, was meant to restrict red lining--not lending to people based on where they live rather than looking at the credit of the individuals looking for a loan. This was expanded under Bill Clinton, and ACORN, as well as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, demonstrated and/or threatened banks who did not loan to their favored constituencies.
(2) The low interest rates (negative real rates) are all on Greenspan. He waited WAY too long to raise interest rates.
(3) Fannie and Freddie were practically a subsidiary of the Democrat Party. It was run by Democrats, and Democrats (again especially Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) refused to allow regulation to rein them in because they were allowing loans to be written to their favored constituents (i.e. low income and minorities who vote for Democrats). Barney Frank is now trying a repeat of this idiocy.
(4) Again, Fannie and Freddie were allowed to run wild by the Democrats. I do fault the Republicans for not pushing harder to rein them in, but it was the Democrats that consistently blocked any legislation to regulate them. Bush was, after all, not a king who could implement this legislation himself--and the small majority the Republicans had was not enough to overcome objections from the like of Dodd and Frank.
(5) Mark to market came out of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation which was itself in response to the Enron scandal. Since Sarbanes was a Democrat and Oxley was a Republican, BOTH parties are to blame for this issue.
But you are obviously not interested in analysis--you just want to close your eyes and blame the "shit for brains Bush". Does that really work to convince anyone who is not already a dyed in the wool leftwinger?
@31 FurryOldGuyJeans on January 18, 2010 09:20 AM,
You seem to be confusing programs and projects.
Projects deliver outputs, discrete parcels or "chunks" of change. Programs create outcomes.
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is an on-going program. The Grand Coulee-Bell Project budget/schedule data I cited @15 is from a project.
MedicVet @13 asked
Can you tell me of one Gov project that came in at or under cost?
Bill H @ 34: Just to flesh out a little of your analysis of what brought us to the financial collapse. I'll also add that you are 100% correct in what you have written. To add: Bush made two speeches (maybe more, two that I remember) during his tenure warning about the problems with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2001 or so. Barney Frank is on record as saying: "[it's] Something I don't see." Apparently he wasn't bothering to look. The Jimmy Carter era Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) got the ball rolling with Red Lining charges against big banks brought by the likes of ACORN and other lefty organizations.
The deal is, all of this stuff is pretty easy to track and ferret out. Guys like MBS are little parrots who pretty much repeat what they have been told and don't bother to look beyond what they want to believe.
Good job on itemizing the many failures of our government to bring about this collapse. But isn't that how government by political patronage operates?
Which kind of brings this to mind. In the 60's the left was distrustful of big government and wanted to short circuit its power and size. Now that they are it, big government is our savior and as far as they are concerned can't get big enough. And look at the messes it creates on a daily basis, this economy being a perfect example.
I'm not confusing diddly, you just keep moving the goal posts to try to make your confusion and befuddlement less noticeable.
But thanks for playing, I needed a laugh at the antics.
G Jiggy #36, you are exactly right. Here are the quotes you were looking for from Barney Frank from September, 2003:
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis situation."
"The more people in my judgment exaggerate the threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury, which i do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. Even if there were a problem, the federal government does not bail them out. But the more pressure there is, the less we see in terms of affordable housing."
You can hear these quotes straight from his mouth in this report.
And I would point out that these statements came during a Banking Committee hearing during which then Treasury Secretary John Snow was pushing for regulations to rein in Fannie and Freddie. So, to put this whole thing on "shit for brains Bush", one has to have, well, shit for brains and has to completely ignore the evidence.
As to the point I made about Barney Frank wanting to repeat his idiocy. Here is an article that shows just that!
Finally, as a long time reader of the Wall Street Journal, I can vouch for the fact that the Journal editorial page was sounding the alarm on Fannie and Freddie years before things went to hell in a handbasket in the fall of 2008--and pointing out Frank and Dodd's involvement as well.
MikeBS @ 32:
IMHO, the Heritage Foundation actually did the numbers right; the usual way of reporting them is wrong. Typically Government reports the administrative costs as an amount based on total spending; however, they spend a LOT more on average per person based upon the age of most of their insured, meaning more expensive treatments.
Looking at the money you spend per person - how much does it cost to administer care for that patient - is a much more realistic and useful number. It represents the fixed costs in the process that you have to deal with. That's what the Heritage Foundation does, and it shows that private industry does a lot better than public.
That said, I've seen your comment - and others like it - before and I'll ask again: can you define what part of the math you don't like or think is wrong? I see people say it's wrong, but never say WHY it's wrong.
Bill H @ 38:
I am a long time reader of the WSJ as well and have read repeatedly over the decades about the problems growing within the GSEs. The Journal was been sounding the alarm loud and long on the problems and the crooks (you can read that "Franklin Delano Raines") that ran them and predicted with some clarity the ruin that would ensue.
You know, the reason that WSJ is such a good paper is that the nation's investors and businessmen make big bets based on the facts and opinion that they present on a daily basis. The WSJ can not entertain flights of agenda fancy like the Seattle Times, P.I. or New York Times who write whatever trash their stupidity leads them (you can read that "Krugman" or "Blethen"). Nobody in their right mind would make a major decision based on their "fact finding" and, really, if you want to stay informed the WSJ is the only place to be.