About Me

Name: The Blue Eye...
Location: blue eye, MO
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 
Life vs. Abortion

The Obama Heallthcare Plan

The Obama Health Care Plan President Barack Obama's health care plan will spend $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

Obama says government is the best arbiter of health. Why is that? BO's plan insures only 16 million of the supposed 46 million uninsured of our nation. Of course, no one actually knows how many people actually lack health insurance but BO says it so we must accept it, even if wrong? Why is that? As many as 300 million Americans have health insurance (which IS NOT health care) so why should our entire nation be forced into government insured healthcare just to carry the other supposed 46 million?

A quick profile of the uninsured says ten million are illegal immigrants - which doesn't mean they don't get health care, free. Walk into virtually any emergency room in America and illegal immigrants are the bulk of patients. (Education and health care costs for illegal immigrants comprise from 16.4 to 20.5 percent of California's budget deficit. Figures are similar nationwide.)

Liberals (Dem Socialists) are urging Obama's nationalized health care plan cover illegal immigrants. The Washington Post suggests failure to include illegal immigrants in the new National health care redesign would create unemployment among U.S. citizens since businesses wouldn't be forced to pick up the insurance tabs for illegals thus hire them at greater rates. This is likely true unless laws to prosecute businesses that hire illegal immigrants - or, better yet, not to require employers to cover employees – are enacted. Only Socialists would use employer malfeasance as an excuse to sacrifice workers' current insurance plans.

Another 9 million or so "uninsured" have household incomes of above $75,000, more than 3 times federal poverty standards for a family of four. For a mere married couple, that's 7 times federal poverty standard. Some 30% of these people are temporarily without health insurance, normally for six months or less, between jobs. Many others voluntarily avoid health insurance; even if they can afford it (My wife and I did during our youth. So did my kids.)a perfectly reasonable position. Factually, many people worry less about paying for the occasional visit to the doctor than paying monthly premiums. The Obama plan would force insurance on all these people then force public (Government controlled and paid for) insurance on the rest of us. Kindly remember, government has nothing it doesn't first take from us – its citizens – first. The PUBLIC will have to pay for Gov. Insurance through taxes.

Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute and author of The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care says there are "12 million uninsured Americans … eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health insurance program -- but they haven't signed up,". Again, voluntary behavior is voluntary, not an excuse for government involvement.

OK, let's sum up. Of those 46 million "uninsured," 31 million uninsured require no fix from the federal government. That leaves 15 million uninsured unaccounted for. The nationalized health care plan Obama proposes, shifts health care insurance for literally 95 percent of the population to a FEDERALLY controlled plan on behalf of 5 percent of our population, the 5 percent who, like illegal immigrants, receive FREE emergency care anytime under current federal law. Why is that?

The media and BO portray the American health system as a system in crisis by pointing to skyrocketing premiums. Costs of a family policy is now approximately $1,000 per month for employers. Obama says, "One out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care in a decade." Premiums for family coverage have risen 78 percent since 2001. The current Government programs, Medicare and Medicaid, comprise a huge chunk of the federal budget. In ten years, they'll comprise more than any other government expenditure. You might consider this as well. Social Security is now broke taking in less than it spends each and every month.

Why are these costs rising exponentially higher? Because of current increased government involvement in the health care system. State regulations decrease market flexibility by requiring that insurers cover unhealthy individuals at lower-cost and requiring insurers cover certain hospitals and doctors. Federal and State governments require health care providers (Insurers and medical personnel) care for individuals without reimbursement which means continually escalating costs for those who do pay, the general public and taxpayers. Both federal and state health care subsidization programs encourage health care providers and insurance to raise prices, our costs, to break even. More government equals higher costs, not lower.

The answer should be more free markets, not less. Competition between insurers, not government monopoly, would lower costs. The correct answer is an expanded private system, not a public one paid for by public taxes. There is no single payer system anywhere in the world that gives better care than we get in the USA, now

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Truth about SS

 

The Truth About Social Security

 


I have repeatedly written about the legal sham that is Social Security and the collusion of our politicians in continuing the deception. Members of both major political parties are extremely adept in convincing the American people and their willing dupes in the media that Social Security is a legitimate retirement program. The American Public has been told that payroll deductions from their wages are "contributions" matched by their employer and pooled in a special "trust fund."

Factually, there is no SS "retirement trust fund." These so-called "contributions" are actually an additional flat rate income tax deposited in the federal government's general fund. In reality, Social Security is nothing but a tax scheme used as a welfare program disguised as a retirement program.

Immediately after going into effect in 1935, the Social Security Act was correctly challenged as unconstitutional. In 1937, in Helvering v. Davis (301 US 619), the Supreme Court revealed the truth about Social Security.  Look it up for yourself.

First, employees are not making a contribution into any retirement program much less their own, but are actually paying a "special income tax" which is deducted from their wages and paid to the federal government by their employer. That tax is an indirect or excise tax imposed on the employee for the "privilege" of being employed by an employer.

Secondly, employers are not making matching contributions into any specific retirement program for their employees, but are actually paying an excise tax for the privilege of having individuals in their employ.

Thirdly, there is no retirement trust fund. The Court stated: "the proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way." Since these particular income taxes are not earmarked in any way, there are no (nor may be) individual retirement accounts. Both taxes are general fund income taxes used to pay general expenditures of the federal government. Simply put, Congress can, has, and does spend these so-called "retirement contributions" to pay for military appropriations, foreign aid, salaries of federal employees, welfare, etc.

In 1960, in Flemming v. Nestor (363 US 603), the Supreme Court provided further insight into the nature of the Social Security program. The Court stated that "...eligibility for benefits...[does] not in any true sense depend on contribution through the payment of taxes." Since the Social Security program is a form of welfare, an individual who has not paid a penny in Social Security taxes can receive various benefits under the program. The nation (we) spends BILLIONS annually on illegal immigrants and non-taxpayers for their welfare programs.

The Court has also ruled that individuals paying Social Security taxes do not acquire any property or contractual rights as they would in an insurance or annuity plan. In addition, the Court stated: "Congress included in the original act, and has since retained, a claim expressly reserving to it "the right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision' of the Act." Factually, Congress regularly amends the laws that control payments, to retirees and all other uses of the SS System. Ask your Congressman. He’ll be glad to tell you.

Social Security, contrary to continuing representations by politicians of both major parties (but principally Democrats), is nothing but a tax and welfare scheme masquerading as a retirement program. Payroll deductions are not "retirement contributions" therefore we are not guaranteed receipt of any benefits. Payments merely qualify the individual for consideration in a federal charity program that can be abolished at any time and is regularly modified by Congress. In fact, if you woke-up tomorrow morning and heard that Social Security had been abolished you would not have any legal claim for any of the promised benefits.

In many proposals to save Social Security, some politicians have repeatedly stated  the program will not face a funding problem until the year 2015 or beyond, depending on the source. What I believe they are really saying is that when insecurity finally is acknowledged, or occurs, the amount of welfare paid by the federal government from the general fund will, for the first time, exceed the amount of tax dollars collected under the guise of retirement contributions.

Despite all the fairy tales emanating from Washington, Social Security is a cash cow generating tens of billions of general fund dollars for Congress to spend each year. In 1999 for example, then Republican Senate Majority Leader Hot to Trot Trent Lott said that the projected federal budget surplus was $110 billion, all resulting from Social Security taxes. Thus, Social Security taxes in 1999 generated approximately $110 billion in "surplus" dollars for Congress to spend however it saw fit, which it did.

In my opinion, the real reason most politicians, again principally but not entirely Democrats, do not want to privatize Social Security is that the ability to tax and spend is the ultimate source of power. And power is the name of the game in Washington. As stated by Alexander Hamilton, "a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will."

If Congress were truly as concerned about the retirement of seniors as they claim in their pleas to “save Social Security”, they would phase out this fraudulent tax and welfare scheme and allow the American people to create their own retirement program. Any amount of the taxes paid in that could be specifically allocated to individuals accounts would hold some “guarantee” that the individual would eventually receive some return plus interest on their own monies. Not only would this stimulate the economy and create jobs, but it would also be the honorable thing to do. That’s why I doubt it’ll get done.

I am again reminded of the Mark Twain remark that "there is no native American criminal class except Congress."  He was joking, of course, but there is always an element of truth in any truly funny remark.


PL Booth
Blue Eye, MO
1st published on December 16, 2002

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »