ObamaCare Would Cause Long Waits and Rationed Care, Says New Study
by Tom RemingtonMarch 18, 2010
Washington, D.C.: ObamaCare would drive practicing doctors out of business and suppress the recruitment of new physicians, resulting in long waits and rationed care for health care consumers.
So concludes a new paper “ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business” by Matt Patterson, health policy analyst for the National Center For Public Policy Research.
Among the findings:
* ObamaCare’s high taxes and new regulations would increase doctors’ overhead and red tape.
* At the same time, millions of newly insured individuals would swell their patient rosters.
* The increased work load, costs and stress, coupled with a decrease in income, would make the practice of medicine more trouble than it’s worth for many doctors.
* In one recent survey, 46 percent of responding primary care physicians say they would quit or try to quit medicine if ObamaCare passes.
* In addition, 63 percent of physicians would prefer Congress take a gradual, incremental approach to health care reform, as opposed to the massive, one-size-fits-all overhaul favored by the Obama administration.
* The shrinking pool of physicians brought on by ObamaCare, coupled with the coming retirement of the Baby Boomers, would put massive stresses on an already overburdened health care system, leading to rationing, long waits, and unhappy, overworked medical care professionals.
Says Patterson, “President Obama and Congressional leaders promise to subsidize health insurance for millions of Americans, but what good is insurance if you can’t find a doctor? Our elected leaders have continued to ignore the public’s opposition to this bill; now they are ignoring our doctors, who warn of grave consequences if this legislation passes.”
An Easily Understandable Explanation of Derivative Markets
by Tom RemingtonMarch 10, 2010
Or, how the Government screws you, rewards its cronies and it’s all business as usual.
Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit.
She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later.
She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans). Word gets around about Heidi’s “drink now, pay later” marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi’s bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit by providing her customers’ freedom from immediate payment demands,
Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi’s gross sales volume increases massively. A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi’s borrowing (credit) limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.
At the bank’s corporate headquarters, expert traders (young Harvard Business School Grads) transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets.
Naive investors don’t really understand that the securities sold to them as AA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation’s leading brokerage houses.
One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi’s bar.
He so informs Heidi, Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics, they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since, Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs. Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%.
The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.
The suppliers of Heidi’s bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms’ pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds.
Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.
Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government.
The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi’s bar.
Most Commented Posts
Disney Shareholders Urged to Challenge Iger
by Tom RemingtonMarch 10, 2010
Progressive Policies at Walt Disney Risk Damage to its Brand Image, says Free Enterprise Project
Shareholders Urged to Challenge CEO Bob Iger at Disney’s Annual Meeting
Washington, D.C.: On occasion of the Disney annual shareholder meeting today, the Free Enterprise Project is warning Disney shareholders that CEO Robert Iger’s progressive political bias puts investors at risk.
The Free Enterprise Project is a program of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a Disney shareholder.
“Iger’s rejection of several offers to sell the distribution rights of the ABC-TV docudrama The Path to 9/11 is a sign that his personal political views are affecting business decisions,” said Free Enterprise Project director Dr. Tom Borelli, who has raised the issue personally with Iger at past shareholder meetings. “In addition, Disney’s close ties to progressive Democrats, including President Obama, may have resulted in ABC News’ special access to cover the president’s health care policy in a day-long media blitz last year.”
“Iger’s policy decisions are putting Disney in the cross-hairs of millions of Americans who are rejecting the progressive assault on liberty. By rebuffing offers to sell the distribution rights of The Path to 9/11, Iger is simultaneously silencing speech while denying shareholders an opportunity to profit from the company’s investment,” Borelli added. “Playing progressive politics is a dangerous game for a company such as Disney that relies on a squeaky clean brand for its revenue.”
The political motivation behind Iger’s decision to bury the docudrama remains a topic of discussion years after its broadcast. Some assert that Iger’s motivation to not let the award winning miniseries see the light of day is driven by his desire to protect the legacy of President Clinton regarding terrorism.
Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood recently reported on the issues surrounding Iger’s controversial verdict.
Last June, ABC News was given special access to the White House to cover President Obama’s health care initiative. ABC’s “Good Morning America” was broadcasted from the White House lawn, “World News,” its nightly news show from the Blue Room, and a special prime time “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” from the East Room.
“A monopoly given to ABC for news coverage raises serious concerns of media independence. The perception that the White House is choosing ABC over other news organizations because of favorable coverage has the potential to damage the credibility of Disney’s news division,” said Borelli.
The proximity between Iger and his team with progressives only adds concerns about media independence. Not only is Iger a generous supporter of progressive politicians (about ninety percent of his donations go to Democrats and liberal PACs), but Disney board member Monica C. Lozano, CEO of La Opinion, a major Spanish-language newspaper in the U.S., is a member of Obama’s economic recovery board.
“The close alliance between Disney and the Obama Administration can be a risk to shareholders. What happens to Disney if Tea Party members and other liberty-minded activists turn on the company because of concerns that Iger is using the company to advance the goals of the progressive movement?,” asks Borelli.
“‘I’m not going to Disney World’ could become the battle cry for American patriots.”
Given these risks, shareholders attending Disney’s annual meeting should ask Iger:
With millions of Americans outraged over the progressive attack on liberty, are you concerned your refusal to sell “The Path to 9/11,” and your personal support of the progressive agenda will cause a conservative backlash against Disney’s brands?
The shareholder meeting is on March 10, 2010 at the JW Marriott San Antonio Hill Country, San Antonio, Texas.
RMEF Launches Dale Earnhardt Land/Wildlife Legacy
by Tom RemingtonMarch 5, 2010
RENO, Nev. – Ten years after his death at the Daytona 500, Dale Earnhardt’s enduring legacy as a competitor and outdoorsman has sparked a new partnership between the Dale Earnhardt Foundation and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
The new venture has been christened the Dale Earnhardt Land/Wildlife Legacy.
Announcing the news March 4 at the RMEF annual convention in Reno, Nev., RMEF President and CEO David Allen said the partnership is good for wildlife and hunters.
“There are lots of NASCAR fans in the RMEF membership, and lots of conservationists among race fans. Teaming up allows us to redouble our efforts on projects that honor Dale’s memory – things like wildlife habitat improvement, land conservation, hunting access improvements and more,” said Allen.
Allen added the partnership will help RMEF gain visibility at NASCAR races and events.
Earnhardt’s son, Kerry, was in Reno for the announcement and to represent the Earnhardt family and others involved in the Dale Earnhardt Foundation. The nonprofit group based in North Carolina funds charitable programs and causes that sustain Dale Earnhardt’s lifelong commitment to children, education and wildlife conservation.
Teresa Earnhardt, Dale’s wife, said, “As a lifelong outdoorsman, Dale was committed to wildlife and land conservation, a passion which he shared with his friends and family. Now that legacy lives on through his foundation and we are honored to have a partner in RMEF. Our shared mission to conserve and restore native game and their habitat will ensure the same opportunities for future generations and Continue the Legend.”
Allen was a personal friend of Earnhardt. In fact, he directed marketing and sponsorships for the Dale Earnhardt/Richard Childress race teams and other NASCAR teams until Earnhardt’s fatal crash in 2001. He remains close to the family.
“When Dale wasn’t thinking about racing, he was thinking about hunting and sharing his passion for the outdoors with others,” said Allen. “It was an honor to know him and now it’s an honor to be working closely again with Teresa to help keep that legacy growing. Dale is the working man’s hero and RMEF is the working man’s conservation group, so this is a great fit. Dale would be very proud today.”
Childress said, “Dale was ‘The Intimidator’ for his fearlessness and competitiveness on the track, but the peacefulness of the outdoors also was a big part of who he was. I believe his quiet-time hunting and fishing helped recharge him for racing, and I know he’s smiling down now at being able to help other people enjoy the outdoors like he did.”
Realtree founder and president Bill Jordan, who also was a friend of Earnhardt, said, “I was fortunate to hunt with Dale and to know him both as an outdoorsman as well as a legendary driver. I’m so pleased to see RMEF teaming up to help honor his memory through conservation, because that’s so meaningful to both race fans and hunters.”
Related Articles
Twenty-Five States Seek “Nullification” Of Federal Gun Control Laws
by Tom RemingtonMarch 4, 2010
As of this writing, five states, Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and South Dakota, have passed laws through their legislature effectively nullifying the Federal Government’s authority to regulated guns and gun accessories. Two states, Montana and Tennessee, their laws most commonly called Firearms Freedom Acts, have been signed by their governors. The other three are expected to follow suit. In addition to those five states, at least twenty more have introduced similar legislation and another half dozen intend to introduce it. By years end, there could feasibly be well over 30 states making an attempt to tell the Federal Government to butt out of their intrastate gun and gun accessory manufacturing.
The model for most of these bills came from Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act, a bill that basically states that any gun or gun accessory manufactured in Montana that is purchased and remains in Montana, cannot be regulated by the Federal Government of the United States. Montana is seeking “Declaratory Judgment” before suggesting that anyone proceed with the manufacturing of guns and accessories.
In reality what these Firearms Freedom Acts are doing is “nullifying” the authority of the Federal Government to regulate guns within the borders of each state when none of the guns or related products ever leave the state. The Federal Government has been very successful in the past in regulating all guns through the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. Montana’s bone of contention is that the Commerce Clause has regulated interstate commerce and has no authority over intrastate commerce.
One might ask if this is a full blown act of nullification. It’s not that Montana and other states are saying that any or a specific federal law is being declared unconstitutional in it’s entirety. In this case any law that the Federal Government thinks gives them authority to regulate intrastate gun manufacturing, is being challenged.
Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and one of the sponsors of the MFFA, says this is a states’ rights issue.
This is a states’ rights effort, using firearms as the object of the exercise. The MFFA exempts Montana-made and retained firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition from federal power, saying that if these items do not cross state lines, they are strictly INTRAstate commerce, not INTERstate commerce, and not subject to federal authority.
Although nullification isn’t a term that is widely used these days, there are other examples of modern day nullification or challenges to certain federal laws. Two that come to mind are the REAL ID Act and marijuana laws. Some states have passed legislation challenging the constitutionality of forcing citizens to have to carry an identification card they believe infringes on their right to privacy and the Constitution. And, some states have passed their own laws authorizing marijuana for medical use where the Federal Government bans all uses and possession of the drug.
We may also be staring down the barrel of nullification depending on what happens with President Obama’s proposed National Health Care plan. If it is mandated that every American citizen have health insurance, many have asked where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have that kind of authority.
Probably the most recent case that expanded the power of the Federal Government to regulate commerce, came in 1942 in the Wickard v. Filburn case. This came at a time when President Roosevelt demanded the power to institute his programs he thought where going to get us on the road to recovery after the Depression. Scary isn’t it.
One of the more notable accounts of nullification was in 1832 in South Carolina. South Carolina’s “Ordinance of Nullification” declared the Tariff of 1828 and Tariff of 1832 unconstitutional. This put President Andrew Jackson in quite the predicament. While Jackson quietly assembled his army, ready to invade South Carolina, negotiations continued. Jackson’s fear was that if South Carolina were to be allowed nullification, many of the southern states would follow suit. Also many of the New England states apposed the tariffs. Jackson feared that secession would follow the nullification and this would lead to the demise of the Union. He also feared that an invasion of South Carolina could just as easily lead to civil war.
Other than President Jackson’s fear of the trouble in South Carolina, his bigger deterrent was coming from the fact that several other states, although never officially declaring nullification, were poised to do so.
Perhaps it is telling that so many states are seeking some form of nullification, some dealing with REAL ID, others medical marijuana and 25 states or more, opting to use gun rights as their tools to seek out a return of more state sovereignty, as is granted us in the Tenth Amendment. What does it tell us that so many states chose gun rights as their tool? And what does it tell us about the people’s attitudes toward the expansion of government.
Where will this go? First we should wait to see what the Court rules in the Montana Firearms Freedom Act case and watch to see how many other states pass and get signed their “nullification” bills. Soon, then, we can declare, “Balls in your court!
Tom Remington
Related Articles
Winter Blizzards Will “Distort” Unemployment Figures?
by Tom RemingtonMarch 2, 2010
Are you kidding me? What? Is this the first time the United States has ever had snow?
“The blizzards that affected much of the country during the last month are likely to distort the statistics. So it’s going to be very important … to look past whatever the next figures are to gauge the underlying trends,” Summers said in an interview with CNBC, according to a transcript.
So, tell me what you think. Do you think this is a stupid excuse to try to hide behind because of the failures of this administration to produce jobs? Is this right up there with Obama’s new “saved or created” jobs, so that now we have to use weather or any other convenient occurrence as an excuse for failure? Or is this real? Are these snow events that unprecedented and have really affected unemployment?
Tom Remington
Related Articles
Winter Blizzards Will “Distort” Unemployment Figures?
by Tom RemingtonMarch 2, 2010
Are you kidding me? What? Is this the first time the United States has ever had snow?
“The blizzards that affected much of the country during the last month are likely to distort the statistics. So it’s going to be very important … to look past whatever the next figures are to gauge the underlying trends,” Summers said in an interview with CNBC, according to a transcript.
So, tell me what you think. Do you think this is a stupid excuse to try to hide behind because of the failures of this administration to produce jobs? Is this right up there with Obama’s new “saved or created” jobs, so that now we have to use weather or any other convenient occurrence as an excuse for failure? Or is this real? Are these snow events that unprecedented and have really affected unemployment?
Tom Remington
Related Articles
All Aboard For the Crony Capitalism Train
by Tom RemingtonMarch 1, 2010
Cabela’s Targeted by National Animal Rights Group
by Tom RemingtonFebruary 26, 2010
*Editor’s Note* This is the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance approach in addressing the actions of the fringe, extremist organization, Defenders of Wildlife, in lying about Cabela’s supporting “wolf-killing competitions”. My version was a bit different. I just call DOW “Pond Scum“. We each have our own style.
(Columbus) – One of the nation’s largest anti-hunting groups, Defenders of Wildlife, have taken aim at Cabela’s Inc. with a misguided and misleading public relations campaign designed to raise money to fund its efforts against outdoor sports.
According to an action alert posted by Defenders, the group accused Cabela’s of sponsoring three so-called “wolf-killing competitions” in Idaho. The group also attacked Cabela’s for the decision by the local paper in Sidney, Nebraska to not run an inflammatory ad against Cabela’s that Defenders had produced. It then went on to solicit funds to run the ad in other papers throughout the state.
The charges by Defenders are grossly misleading. Cabela’s did not sponsor any “wolf-killing” events. Rather, it provided $150 worth of products as a donation to the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife-Idaho organization. That group organized and conducted three local predator hunts in 2009. The hunts complied with all state and federal laws. Additionally, all available information indicates that no wolves were killed during the hunts.
Cabela’s has been a long-time supporter of legal hunting and fishing and has worked closely with state and federal wildlife agencies to conserve wildlife populations. They are renowned in the business world as a leader in conservation programs and ethic. By contrast, Defenders has been one of the leaders in an effort to keep the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population on the Endangered Species List despite the recovery of their population and reasonable management plans designed by state officials.
“Defenders of Wildlife is attempting to tarnish the reputation of one of the most wildlife conscious companies in the world,” said Bud Pidgeon, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance president and CEO. “Sportsmen should show their support by visiting a local Cabela’s and let them know that you appreciate their efforts and are not fooled by the antis’ propaganda.”
Related Articles
Obama Health Plan Would Lead to Public Option
by Tom RemingtonFebruary 25, 2010
Report Concludes President Obama’s Health Proposal Would Lead to Public Option
Washington, D.C.: President Obama’s new health care plan will all but guarantee the elimination of private insurance and lead to a single payer government-run health care system, says a new report, “White House Health Care Plan Contains Back Door to a Public Option” by policy analyst Matt Patterson of the National Center For Public Policy Research.
Among the findings:
* The President’s plan would create a new federal agency charged with monitoring health insurers to make sure that proposed premium increases are not “unreasonable” or “unjustified.” This agency could compel private insurers to lower premiums, offer rebates or “take other actions to make premiums affordable.”
* The President’s plan would also dictate that health insurers cover those with pre-existing conditions and saddle them with billion in new taxes and fees.
* Health insurance is one of the least profitable industries America. In terms of profit margin, in 2009 it ranked a dismal 87th out of 215 industries; their overall profit margin was a mere 3.4 percent.
* The President’s proposed combination of new taxes and price controls would cause a wave of health insurer bankruptcies, devastating the industry and reducing health insurance options for consumers.
* Eventually, the shrinking pool of private insurers would force the government to enact a single payer system to provide the insurance that Congress mandates that all Americans have.
Patterson calls Obama’s ploy “breathtakingly audacious,” noting, “Far from being able to keep the plan you like, the President’s health care plan seems designed to make sure you end up with only one option for your health care – the government.”
“White House Health Care Plan Contains Back Door to a Public Option,” by Matt Patterson is available on the National Center For Public Policy Research website at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA603.html.
