Obama health care plan projected to cost 5.2 million jobs

Comments Off on Obama health care plan projected to cost 5.2 million jobs

Has anyone heard this yet? Along with this:

All of the subsidy for health care falls away when your income is at 59,000 and that’s joint income. It doesn’t take a lot for two wage earners to get up to 59,000 so at 58,000 a person receives full government subsidy on health care. At 59,000 most likely your employer paid health care goes away, you have to purchase it in the private market and people could be looking at anywhere from 12 to 20 thousand dollars non-tax free money in purchasing private health care. That would be a disaster for Middle America. At 59,000 the health benefits go away.”

In addition to this: “Based on a model developed by Obama’s  Council of Economic Advisors Chair Christina Romer, it is estimated that some 4.7 million jobs could be lost as a result of taxes on businesses that cannot afford to provide health insurance coverage.”

Obama health care plan projected to cost 5.2 million jobs.

And the current idea for mandating employers to insure employees or pay a fine would cost employers $49 billion dollars. Do You Want Universal Healthcare?

Obama health care plan projected to cost 5.2 million jobs

In an interview on Fox News on August 27th Mark Wilson of Applied Economic Strategies made the economic case against the current plan for health care reform.

Michele Bachmann says the same thing at about 5:20 into this interview below.


He said the current idea for mandating employers to insure employees or pay a fine in the form of a tax would cost employers $49 billion dollars and cause the loss of an additional 5.2 million jobs. In addition wages would be “stunted” for another 10.2 million wage earners.

This seems like a high cost to make sure that everyone is covered. Doesn’t it make more sense to lower costs of health care and health care insurance and keep the quality? Americans that are insured are happy with their coverage and their health care.

We do need to lower the costs, because the cost to purchase insurance is escalating and Medicare costs are crippling the budget. Reform is needed but not government control or the proposed public option. Here are some things to consider.

Deficit
Government spending is out of control. Spending that is likely to trigger inflation as we begin to come out of this recession. It was announced this week that in the next decade the deficit is going to be$2 trillion more than originally projected. We cannot afford any more expensive entitlements that we don’t have a definitive plan to pay for.

Insurance Companies
High costs are not caused by private insurance companies. Medicare costs per insured are actually higher than private insurance companies. Reform the industry by allowing competition across state lines. In some regions there is a virtual monopoly. Allow companies to offer comprehensive or catastrophic coverage. Take other measures such as tort reform to lower costs so people can afford to buy their own policy. Don’t undercut the industry with a cheaper public option designed to undermine the industry and put them out of business. The public option is the first step to a government take over of the system or a single payer system.

Free Market Economy
The government does not have the incentive to cut costs. Private business wants to make a profit. The more they cut costs the more profit they will make, so they have an incentive to cut costs. Private companies including insurance companies are more likely to cut costs, provide customer service, and innovation in care. The profit motivation is a powerful one.

The American people are ready to reform the system to lower costs, let’s not sacrifice the quality or our freedom in the process. Let’s not let the current economic “crisis” to drive through another bill the American people don’t want and won’t solve the problem. If we make health care affordable many more of us will be covered, and the rest of us will have health care we can better afford. There are lots of good ideas out there, so lets not rush into any decision that will be virtually impossible to undo later.

Examiner.com

Advertisements

Gay Marriage Loses in New York

Comments Off on Gay Marriage Loses in New York

I am going to highlight some areas in this story. How is it that gay people deserve marriage RIGHTS? To categorize a sexual deviation as a right is abominable, and a least a few took a stand in New York’s Congress.   The big news is that traditional marriage won.  Now, it probably goes back into the court system for a set of liberal judges to pass it.  Here’s how liberal opinions get into a news story, rather than reporting.  From CBS 2 in New York:

NY Senate Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Despite Passing Through Assembly, Senators Knock Down Proposed Legislation With 38-24 Vote

Reporting
Marcia Kramer

ALBANY (CBS) ―

New York will not be joining Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa in legalizing same-sex marriage after the state Senate rejected the bill on Wednesday.

New York will not be joining Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa in legalizing same-sex marriage after the state Senate rejected the bill on Wednesday.

The State Assembly passed it, but the dysfunctional Senate could only muster 24 of the 32 votes it needed.

The Senate debate was spirited on Wednesday.

“There’s something special about New York. We have the legacy of setting the tone for the rest of the country. This an important issue and I’m asking us to send a message across the country,” said Sen. Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn) said.

“We owe it to the entire gay community around the state of New York to pass this legislation,” added Sen. Jeffrey Klein (D-Bronx).

“We have nothing to fear from people who are committed to each other and want to share their lives and protect one another in the event of sickness, illness, or death. We have nothing to fear from love and commitment,” said Sen. Diane Savino (D-Staten Island).

But in the end, the vote to legalize same-sex marriage in New York was defeated by the members of the state Senate, 38 “no” votes to just 24 “yes” votes, a move that was particularly upsetting to Amy Lavine and Ilene Sameth, a couple who have been together for 25 years and watch the debate with hands clasped, hoping to be able to legally marry in New York.

“It is really devastating, it really is. I don’t even know how to put it into words. It is really sad that people could not hear the arguments that are being made,” said Lavine.

To hear that things are not that we really hoped for as Amy said, it’s very hard to put that into words,” added Sameth.

But members of the Catholic League, who had opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York, said failure to pass the measure was a victory for what the regard as the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

“The fact that it didn’t pass I think is a clear indication that the people in the Senate understand that the timing is wrong for this bill and hopefully they even understand that the content of this bill is also seriously flawed,” said Catholic League member William Donohue.

An angry Gov. David Paterson charged that if people had truly voted their conscience, lawmakers would be celebrating marriage equality Wednesday.

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is openly gay, released a statement shortly after the vote took place: Today the New York state Senate rejected an opportunity to declare that all citizens in New York are equal. The depth of sadness that I and many New Yorkers feel today is difficult to express. This is a loss for every family in New York. This is a loss for every lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender New Yorker.”

She added that although the bill was rejected, she would continue to work as an advocate for gay rights.

“My partner and I will are not able to legally marry in New York State. My same-sex neighbors and constituents are not able to legally marry in New York State. But we will continue to work, to fight and to educate. We will continue to support those amazing advocates who spend every day fighting for LGBT New Yorkers equal rights,” she said. “We will not accept defeat and we will not stop fighting until all New Yorkers are treated equally. I sincerely believe that some day LGBT New Yorkers will be able to legally marry.”

Harvesting from Babies

Comments Off on Harvesting from Babies

Are you convinced yet that this government is going to push through everything that is taboo to the people?  Are you convinced that when we the people speak, as the Constitution says, that we’re not being listened to?

U.S. set to fund more stem cell study
NEW LINES APPROVED
‘Today’s announcement is the first wave’

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 3, 2009

The Obama administration has begun approving new lines of human embryonic stem cells that are eligible for federally funded experiments, opening the way for millions of taxpayer dollars to be used to conduct research that was put off-limits by President George W. Bush.

Launching a dramatic expansion of government support for one of the most promising but most contentious fields of biomedical research, the National Institutes of Health on Wednesday authorized the first 13 lines of cells under the administration’s policy and was poised to approve 20 more Friday.

“This is the first down payment on what is going to be a much longer list that will empower the scientific community to explore the potential of embryonic stem cell research,” said NIH Director Francis S. Collins. “Today’s announcement is the first wave.”

An additional 76 stem cell lines are awaiting vetting, and researchers have indicated that they plan to submit at least 254 more for approval.

The NIH has already authorized 31 grants worth about $21 million for research on human embryonic stem cells, money that was contingent on new lines passing government muster. The grants are for a variety of research, including work aimed at developing cells that could be used to treat diseases of the heart and nervous system.

Many other grant requests have been submitted by researchers hoping to use some of the $10 billion the NIH received as part of the economic stimulus, Collins said.

“We’ve been waiting with bated breath to get started,” said George Daley, a stem cell researcher at Children’s Hospital in Boston who created 11 of the lines approved Wednesday. “We could do today what we couldn’t do yesterday.”

Bush severely restricted federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research because of moral objections to the destruction of human embryos to obtain the cells. Federally funded scientists were limited to studying 21 existing cell lines that many criticized as flawed and inadequate; had to erect cumbersome bureaucratic procedures to separate government-funded research from privately funded work; and were sometimes prevented from sharing ideas.

Now, although embryonic stem cell lines will still have to be created using private funding, federal funding will be permitted for experiments using a much larger array of lines, once those lines have been scrutinized to make sure they were created from embryos obtained ethically. That will vastly expand the number of scientists and types of experiments using taxpayer dollars.

“This is what we’ve been waiting for,” said Amy Comstock Rick of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, which has been leading the lobbying effort to loosen the federal restrictions. “We’ve very excited.”

Opponents see ‘tragedy’

But the announcement was condemned by opponents of the research, who argued that the work is not only unethical but unnecessary, because of the availability of adult stem cells and other more recently identified alternatives.

Ethically, we don’t think any taxpayer should have to fund research that relies on destroying early human life at any stage,” said Richard M. Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “But the tragedy of this is multiplied by the fact that no one can think what the problem is that can only be solved by these cells.”

Collins, a geneticist and evangelical Christian whose appointment raised concern among some scientists, defended the work.

“I think that there is an argument to be made that what is being done is ethically acceptable,” Collins said, “even if you believe in the inherent sanctity of the human embryo.”

Many scientists believe embryonic stem cells will yield fundamental insights into the underlying causes of a host of diseases and could be used to cure diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, paralysis and other ailments. But extracting the cells destroys days-old embryos. In an effort to prevent tax dollars from encouraging the destruction of more embryos, Bush on Aug. 9, 2001, restricted federal funding to studies involving lines that were already in existence.

Critics have long complained that those cells had shortcomings, such as defects that could make them dangerous to transplant into people.

In the meantime, hundreds of newer lines have been developed that offer a host of opportunities. Many, for example, carry defects for specific diseases and could yield crucial clues into how those illnesses develop and might be cured.

U.S. researchers who wanted to study them have had to use private funds and go through complicated bureaucratic hoops, sometimes essentially creating parallel laboratories with carefully segregated staff and equipment to keep federal funds from being used for the experiments.

Guidelines ordered

President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise in March by signing an executive order lifting the Bush restrictions and ordering the NIH to develop guidelines to decide which lines could be ethically used.

In a political compromise, the guidelines finalized in July limited funding to lines created from excess fertility clinic embryos, as long as they were deemed to have been obtained ethically. The lines have to meet a strict set of criteria, such as making sure couples were not offered any financial incentives, knew the embryos would be destroyed for research and were offered the option of donating them to other couples.

Some proponents of the research criticized the guidelines for not going further and allowing, for example, federal funds to be used to create embryos specifically for research purposes or by cloning techniques. Federal funds are also still barred by Congress from being used to create the cell lines.

The final NIH guidelines created an elaborate process for vetting cell lines. Those that meet the criteria set forth by the guidelines could be approved by the agency’s staff, while those that are more questionable because they were obtained under less stringent requirements will be vetted individually by a special advisory committee to the NIH director.

It was unclear whether any of the 21 lines originally approved by Bush would qualify; so far only one has been submitted for review. The lines approved Wednesday — 11 at Children’s Hospital and 2 at Rockefeller University in New York — met the basic requirements.