Friday, August 31, 2007

"Healthcare Issue" Card...


We heard it numerous times during the 2006 campaigns. It first picked up steam during the 2004 campaigns and has become a familiar staple to the Democratic Party candidates speech lineup… It’s the overused claim that “47 Million Americans live in America without any Healthcare Insurance”…

The actual numbers from the Census Bureau are out and they show that not all of the 47 million claimed are uninsured because of the cruel, cruel, world of free enterprise.. It is enlightening to see the actual numbers and to see the amount of people who choose not to carry medical insurance but yet they can easily afford it, are not actual citizens of the United States, or are “Young and Invincible”.

The article “The ’47 million uninsured’ myth” that appeared in IBD brings up some interesting points and questions. First let’s look at some actual numbers provided by the Census Bureau and ignored by the “Democratic Party Issue Machine”

Who are the Uninsured?:

White alone (not Hispanic):……10.8%……..21.162 million
Black alone:………………………20.5%…….7.652 million
Asian alone:……………………..15.5%………2.045 million
Hispanic (any race):…………….34.1%…….11.328 million

Foreign born:…………………….33.8%……..12.615 million
(Naturalized)……………………..16.4%……..2.384 million
(non-citizen)………………………45.0%…….10.231 million

Less the $25,000.………………..24.9%……..13.933 million
$25k to $49.9k……………………21.1%……..15.319 million
$50k to $74.9k……………………14.4%……..8.459 million
$75k and up………………………8.5%……….9.283 million

“One of the shocking things in the Census Bureau's report this week on poverty and health care in America is that so many well-to-do people can easily afford health care, but choose to go without it“.

“The median household income, according to the data released this week, is $48,200. You might be surprised to discover that 38% of all the uninsured -- that's almost 18 million people -- have incomes higher than $50,000 a year. An astounding 20% of all uninsured have incomes over $75,000. These are people who can afford coverage“.

Where will the money for this “Universal Healthcare for All” come from and what type of healthcare will we get for “Our” money”

“Is it really a good idea to tax working people to subsidize those who refuse to pay for a necessity they could easily buy? The answer, of course, is no.”

Who will pay for this Universal Healthcare that the democrats so advocate? Several examples and questions about this to follow but for now lets look at H.R. bill #676 and Democratic Representatives John Conyers website that provides the following proposed sources for income to pay for this Healthcare…

New Sources of Revenue Under H.R. 676 = $1,259 billion

1. Payroll Tax (3.3% additional on employer\employee…
This increase and source of revenue will come from those of us in the workforce and paying payroll taxes…

2. Stock Transfer Tax (0.25% on seller and buyer)
A form of additional tax on those investing their money in the Stock market and United States economy. These investments are responsible for much of the outstanding economy we have had for six years running…

3. Reduce Corporate Welfare.
Libertarian Neal Boortz has an interesting statement in the form of a question here. Do corporations pay taxes? Or are the additional taxes just passed on to the consumer?

4. Reverse 2001 and 2002 Tax Cuts…
Once again the Democrats solution to everything is to eliminate the evil Bush tax cuts for they are unfair. They again ignore that the tax cuts by President’s Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush 43 all resulted in growing economies and much more revenue coming into the governments treasuries…

5. Tax Surcharge: 5% on Richest 5% of Taxpayers; 10% on Richest 1%:
Again the Democratic Party’s solution is to go after those who create most of the jobs and opportunities for the rest of us. A perfect example of the “Class-Warfare” card…

Another important element of the H.R. 676 bill is that universal healthcare for all will be available for everybody residing in the United States. At no time will it be required that the person seeking free healthcare will have to produce a social security card. The IBD article has an interesting point about this:

“That latter piece of data is alarming. Drilling even deeper, one finds that fully 27% of all the uninsured in the U.S. -- that's 12.6 million people -- aren't even citizens.
Not coincidentally, the government also estimates that about 12 million illegals now reside in the U.S., though some think tanks put the number as high as 20 million.
Putting the two together, this suggests that -- surprise -- a major reason for the uninsured "problem" is our failure to enforce our border”.

These numbers from the Census Bureau show the true number and status of the 47 million that the Democrats love to talk about but the truth is also that there are those out there that are not covered and should be taken care of. IBD provides an interesting point on this subject also:

“Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small -- perhaps half the reported 47 million or less.
Yet it's not clear that shrinking the 47 million to zero would help all that much. Because the uninsured still get health care. They get it through Medicaid, the state-run, federally funded program for the indigent. They get care, by law, in any emergency room in the country.”

The Democratic Party Candidates claim that they will make the healthcare system available to all, no matter what their status, make it more affordable, and the government will provide for all those 47 million. But we have seen what happens when the Government steps in and tries to run important aspects of our life and also take more control and liberties from us.

“Making consumers responsible for spending their own health care dollars -- and letting them benefit when they control costs -- is the real answer to our "uninsured problem."
It would lead to lower costs, and wider coverage -- something universal care advocates promise, but can't deliver“.

My local area has a “Coalition” that has been focusing on the “Healthcare for All” issue for years and have been very vocal in parades and other public forums for sometime. It is commendable that this coalition is looking out for those less “fortunate” but the above data shows that there are many different categories to a claim. Many of these same “Coalition” members have also been very vocal in their opposition to the President and his administration when it comes to the healthcare issue.

But lets look a few aspects of this issue that the Democratic Candidates seem to exclude from their stump speeches:

It looks like the vast majority of the revenue for H.R. bill #676 will come from the payroll tax payer. The person going out and working and paying those payroll taxes and lets not forget the additional tax on the employer. Remember what Boortz said about who really pays for taxes to the corporations or employer? You the consumer pays…

What about those who are no longer in the workforce and paying payroll taxes? How do they contribute to the H.R. 676 solution in providing “Healthcare for all”?
There is a tax surcharge on the top 1% and 5% but does that mean the income earners or tax on all wealth in America? If the person is retired and has their “Riches” already will they be taxed or is it just the working people or “Income” tax payers? If I am retired or rich already does that mean all that I will pay is an additional tax on “Income” or a tax on my wealth that I already have?

“Healthcare for All”? Does that mean my payroll taxes will pay for the free healthcare for Bill Gates, Barbara Striesand, Al Gore, Donald Trump? And what about the 17.74 million that the above data reports who make $50,000 and more but decide not to pay for their own healthcare? The worker should instead pay increased taxes so the the government can run this program?

And what about those in “Coalitions” that are retired, no longer pay payroll taxes, can afford their own healthcare, have already made their riches and pay taxes on little income? Sure they are going to advocate “Healthcare for All” when the bill is going to paid by everybody else….

Monday, August 27, 2007

"Dems deliver for Hanger"?


After the Republican primary victory for incumbent Senator Emmett Hanger back in June, I pretty much stayed out of the expected debate regarding if “Democrat” voters crossed over and voted in the Republican primary and who they would have voted for.

There were numerous blog postings and debate in many local blogs and I heard many interesting theories about this subject. I decided to keep this subject out of the “RightsideVA” line-up for there is no hard data available to prove how many “Democrat” voters may have crossed over to vote for Hanger. And as having been a Sayre supporter I am sure it would have been viewed as inappropriate and “Sore loser” if I insinuated that Senator Hanger had won due to “Outside” influence…

I found it very interesting this week when I found the following statements that appeared in a posting on the website for the Democrat Candidate that will be challenging Senator Hanger in the November election…


David Cox Rockbridge Weekly, 6/20/07

"What’s that headline, you ask?"

"Emmett Hanger won the GOP primary last week; how could Democrats have won"?

Here’s why: "Democrats won the race for Emmett."

I found it interesting that the Democrat(ic) Candidate would make such a claim with it being somewhat impossible to determine how many, if any, democrats had in fact crossed over to vote for Senator Hanger.

“Fourteen thousand voters went to the polls. Of that surprisingly high turnout, I dare say at least 900 were Democrats. I can’t prove that other than by checking out each precinct’s voter rolls. But I ran into a lot of Dems who themselves voted, and/or heard of others crossing over to the GOP primary. (I was not one.) Nary a one of them confessed to supporting Scott Sayre. On the contrary, unbeknownst to me at the time, one of my good buddies went around getting out the vote for Hanger.”

The Democratic Candidate then describes a quandary for Senator Hanger if he was to go too “far to the right” in the future…

"On the other hand, if he steers too far to the right, the Democrats who pulled him through in the ’07 primary won’t be so willing to cross party lines to help him out next time".

Sunday, August 26, 2007

"Anti-War or Anti-Republican War"?...

Are "They" really anti-war or are they actually just against the war if a positive outcome in the war on terrorism benefits the Republicans? "They" have changed their game plan and forms of attacks numerous times over the years when they did not get the traction that they hoped for.

Several of the 2008 Presidential Candidates have talked about how they will withdrawl troops as soon as they are in office and "Re-deploy" them in strategic areas. But they do not talk about what they will do if the violence increases or if the predicted genocide happens once they remove the troops? Will they send troops back in if there are 1,000 genocide murders? 10,000 genocide murders? 100,000 murders? 1,000,000 murders? What will they do if their withdrawl results in ethnic cleansing?

Or maybe "Their" anti-war cry's are actually just attacks against the Republican Party and their control of the Executive branch, a long run of majority in Congress, and a strong base?

S.A. Miller had a good article over at the Washington Times about how much of "their" anti-war efforts have been concentrated on those Republicans who have supported the War on terrorism, the war in Iraq, and President Bush. But yet "they" have not protested the Democrats who have not supported withdrawl of the troops from Iraq. Maybe it's not an anti-war agenda after all...

"Republicans targeted by a blitz of ads and protests by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) say the effort is blatantly partisan because Democrats opposed to a withdrawal are not in the liberal protesters' line of fire."

"The Republicans' resolve confounds the 10-week Iraq Summer campaign, a $12 million onslaught of TV, radio and billboard ads; picket-line protests; and petition drives paid for by AAEI, a coalition of liberal groups including and Americans United for Change."

"It is obviously a partisan political organization," said Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican. "It kind of fizzled."

Spokesmen for Rep. Pryce said:
"Two paid liberal activists bused in from Vegas and Minnesota trying to make political hay in Ohio is nothing new," he said. "Ohio is a battleground state. We've withstood the vitriol and lies from and its brethren. ... Ohio voters see through this kind of stuff."

"Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican and Iraq Summer target, Thursday called on President Bush to bring some troops home by Christmas. He also said he would not support troop-withdrawal legislation because it is the president's job as commander in chief to conduct the war."