The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have been funding dubious causes for a long time and it is showing up in record deficits. It is high time that the light of day be shown on what they are doing. And now, they are planning on using reconciliation to hurry through complicated, far-reaching legislation. This is an abuse of the budget process...
By Lynda Simmons-Jenkins September 28, 2009
This is a letter to the editor of The Wyoming Eagle Tribune from Lynda Simmons-Jenkins
To the Editor:
The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have been funding dubious causes for a long time and it is showing up in record deficits. It is high time that the light of day be shown on what they are doing. And now, they are planning on using reconciliation to hurry through complicated, far-reaching legislation. This is an abuse of the budget process. With critical matters such as a massive revamping of our health care system which will impact the lives of every citizen of our great land (which has been on the table for at least 35 years), the Senate and House have a duty to debate and amend and explain in the full light of day, however long that may take, and post the final bill, NOT a "summary" thereof, on the internet for all of us to read. That the bill is arcane, or difficult to read is not excuse not to post the final bill on the internet BEFORE it is voted on. We are an educated population; we are able to read, write, and do arithmetic. The senate has a duty to consider what it is we propose, and why we propose it, and let us see the result BEFORE it becomes law.
A look at who is influencing Barack Obama. Remember he said in the campaign to look at who he surrounds himself with? One of these people is Ezekiel Emmanuel MD. He is, or was, the Chair (on extended detail to the Office of Management and Budget) at the National Institute of Health (NIH). It would Appear Obama made a good choice in selecting Ezekiel Emmanuel MD...
My concern is that most senior citizens (based on the ads on tv and Obama's talk) do not know the outcome of what will happen if the government takes over for our health insurance. It will put the private insurance companies out of business that now give additional care coverage to seniors in addition to medicare.
By Rosetta Bailey (Contact Info Pending Author's Approval)
My concern is that most senior citizens (based on the ads on tv and Obama's talk) do not know the outcome of what will happen if the government takes over for our health insurance. It will put the private insurance companies out of business that now give additional care coverage to seniors in addition to medicare.
If the government cannot control the costs of medicare now, how in the heck do they think they can control the costs when they have total control? This is not the American way. There has to be a better way. Where are the doctors? Why are they not speaking up? Where are the health insurance providers and why aren't they speaking up? Where is AARP? Editor's Note(Here is what AARP is doing. Click Here) Speak up senior's Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. Obama says what he knows we want to hear; He is NOT for seniors. Who costs the most for the government with health care costs? Seniors! His plan is a ten year plan (this is a risk management calculation on how long seniors live). Don't let him decide our future, we must be in control. Get involved. KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN OUR COUNTRY.
So who will be the first to get medical assistance under his plan, seniors? THINK NOT. We are a cost to the government.
There was recently a letter to the editor supporting a government plan because private insurance companies make a profit (Health Reform Would Be Efficient; 7/29/09). Such ignores progress from competition and consumer choice and the situation with current government plans. Medicare and Medicaid costs are out of control and on the way to bankrupting the two systems. There are several reasons for this...
By Robert P. Hodous
Charlottesville Daily Progress Charlottesville, Virginia
To the editor:
There was recently a letter to the editor supporting a government plan because private insurance companies make a profit (Health Reform Would Be Efficient; 7/29/09). Such ignores progress from competition and consumer choice and the situation with current government plans.
Medicare and Medicaid costs are out of control and on the way to bankrupting the two systems. There are several reasons for this: the lack of a profit motive, expectations of participants and required coverage. The lack of a profit motive is present in most of government.
Absent promotion, the way to increase your income in government is to increase your budget and the number of people or programs you supervise. Therefore, there is no incentive to make administration more efficient. In the private sector, however, there are many reasons for increasing efficiency. With competition it is important to find better more efficient and less expensive means of treating illnesses and to improve administrative efficiency.
In the government plans, the usual way to cut costs is to decrease what is paid to a provider – which is exactly what is being proposed for Medicare to help pay for the government plan – or to ration care. Decreasing reimbursements without taking steps to decrease the costs of those reimbursed really has the effect of rationing care. If you pay people less while not decreasing their costs, fewer people will go into the profession, and care is rationed through lack of available providers and equipment. Such is what is happening in many European countries and Canada.
There are changes which need to be made to improve the system. However, they are in the opposite direction from what is being considered in Congress. They include greater choices in insurance plans, broader use of medical savings accounts and high deductible insurance policies, limits on malpractice recoveries and equal tax treatment of employer paid and individually paid insurance plans.
Tell Congressman Perriello and Senators Warner and Webb to support market-oriented reforms which stand a real chance of improving health care and to limit a government plan to lower paid workers who cannot afford insurance.
Sincerely,
Robert P. Hodous 1309 Lester Drive Charlottesville, VA22901 bobhodous@embarqmail.com
Ivan
1
Listen All
There will be no rationing of care. All you will have is brought and paid for liars from the insurance companies telling you those type of things to scare you. The insurance company executive make 20-30 Million Dollars a year. And that would be the only people effected negativly by the new health care plan. They lie to you to scare you into speaking out against the health care plan that would actually improve everybodys health care. Dont let their lies stop you from supporting the health care plan that is in your best interest and not theirs.
I urge you to stand for the rights of the American people by OPPOSING the Obama-Kennedy health care plan being discussed in Congress now. Stand against the loss of personal freedom, the skyrocketing tax increases and the health care rationing that will result from this rushed and ill-thought through plan.
By Jean Price August 1, 2009
DearSenators andCongressmen:
I urge you to stand for the rights of the American people by OPPOSING the Obama-Kennedy health care plan being discussed in Congress now.Stand against the loss of personal freedom, the skyrocketing tax increases and the health care rationing that will result from this rushed and ill-thought through plan.
The idea that our lawmakers are rushing health care legislation through Congress now is reason enough to staunchly oppose this plan, but I am faxing you today to let you know that I OBJECT to the government taking control of my private health care decisions. Many of us are pleased with our health insurance and do not want to be forced into a government plan. There are alternative ways to help those few who do not have insurance or choose not to have insurance. These plans need to be carefully considered. There is not a health care crisis in America! We have the best in the world!
I OPPOSE the so-called "Public Option" proposals (as do the vast majority of American citizens) that amount to socialized health care. Look at socialized medicine in Canada, England, and France. Health care is inefficient there with its long lines and discrimination on who gets care, what gets covered, who gets surgery, and who ultimately dies and when. (like denying Seniors care when they get too old?) What right do you have to ration health care and decide who lives or dies? The government is not God!Do you honestly want to subject our citizens to a system that is far inferior to what we now have in the US? Congress and the President are exempt from this bill. Why is that? What’s good enough for us isn’t good enough for you???
I OPPOSE theamendment to the current legislation being discussed that mandates ABORTION ON DEMAND. This is an unacceptable violation of the conscience of US health care providers and a moral outrage for all citizens who believe in the sanctity of life.
I OPPOSE adding more debt. The cost would bankrupt our citizens and destroy our wealth. Do you have no conscience? The debt of Social Security, Medicare (our current Government Health Care), and Obama's Stimulus bill are already on the backs of our grandchildren. And you want to add MORE debt?? Politics trumps common sense?? I implore you… NO MORE TAXES!!I am taxed out!!
Please use intelligence, reason, and Godly wisdom in making your decision. Your actions have consequences for generations to come. I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO on this plan!
Sincerely,
Jean Price
US Citizen Charlottesville, VA 22923
JIM
1
The fed and treasury at the direction of Obama are devaluating the dollar and working with foreign powers to replace it. My feeling is that within the next 18 to 24 months the great depression will look like kindergarten. People are focused on smoke and mirrors rather than on solving the problems.
An example is Social Security the government defines it as a problem. The problem are those we left to manage it. If they would have left it alone it would be more than stable.
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced Social Security (FICA) Program. He Promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
1958 is the first year that Congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.
Congress' logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat,Term of Office: November 22,1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security
(FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
Who decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?
ANSWER: That's right! JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. (jIMMY CARTER) (DEMOCRAT, TERM OF OFFICE: JANUARY 20, 1977 TO JANUARY 20, 1981 AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
IMMIGRANTS MOVED INTO THIS COUNTRY, AND AT AGE 65, BEGAN TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTYGAVE THESE PAYMENTS TO THEM,EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER
PAID A DIME INTO IT!
Arlie this is all documented and I don't care about who's a Republican or Democrat both parties are corrupt . My point is we can fix this and should. No one that I know is in favor of a nationalized health plan . Yet this administration is going to spend billions of tax dollars AGINST AMERICANS wishes.
Today we are inaugurating a new feature on the SSI Blog, Seniors Sound Off. This feature is an opportunity for you to participate in the discussion and share your views and opinions with others. You may submit your blog at the Action Center on our Home Page. We won’t be able to publish all blogs submitted but we will do our best to choose a broad cross section of opinions and make it possible for you to comment on and discuss each blog among yourselves. I have asked my father to launch Seniors Sound Off...
Today we are inaugurating a new feature on the SSI Blog, Seniors Sound Off. This feature is an opportunity for you to participate in the discussion and share your views and opinions with others. You may submit your blog at the Action Center on our Home Page. We won’t be able to publish all blogs submitted but we will do our best to choose a broad cross section of opinions and make it possible for you to comment on and discuss each blog among yourselves.
I have asked my father to launch Seniors Sound Off.
LAH
By Forrest B. Hunter May 22, 2009
Robertsdale, Alabama
The Congressional Budget Office announced on April 22, that, according to their projections, there will be NO Social Security increases (COLA) for seniors in the years 2010 and 2011. As this April 22 release was on the Director's Blog few people actually saw the news. However, a New York Times report also carried the news on May 2.
This would be the first time in more than 30 years that there will be no cost of living increase for Social Security benefits. If this situation comes about, of all Social Security recipients currently living, only those over 95 years of age will have experienced a year with no COLA. The "good news" is that in 2013 the CBO says seniors can expect an 0.8 percent COLA. That is 8/10 of one percent; 8 cents for every $10.00—80 cents for every $100.00 in your check.
But, you are not to worry; the CBO says there will be no significant inflation and that is the reason you will get NO increase. Remember, this is the same CBO that predicts trillion-dollar deficits in the Obama budget for the foreseeable future. Trillion-dollar deficits and no significant inflation is as believable as tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans.
Our grocery bill increases weekly; if there are ten items, at least five have price increases since the last time we purchased those items. If that is not inflation, I don’t know what is. Inflation is simply a "tax increase"—the cruelest tax. The CBO makes its determination of the future cost of living by utilizing the Consumer Price Index provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). If you are brave enough to visit the web site, you will discover the greatest "what if" game in the world. BLS looks at what happened and estimates (guesses) what will happen.
The "No-Cola" prediction is based on a comparison of costs between the third quarter 2008 and the first quarter 2009. The CBO states, "From the third quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009, the CPI-W has fallen (by about 4 percent) to 206.5 largely reflecting the decline in energy prices from their historically high levels in 2008" (emphasis added). The CBO figures this way; gas is cheaper on January 1, 2009 than last summer (2008) so prices have come down—no inflation. The sad truth is seniors got a COLA in January 2009 and oil prices have gone up 66+% since February 2009. Gasoline prices continue to rise and summer is coming which means even higher gas prices. It would appear that the CBO "guesstimate" of no inflation has been seriously challenged by the facts.
This might not be inflationary to CBO, but it is deflating all senior's purchasing power. You can spin it anyway you wish but, the truth is, all seniors cost of living has increased since January 1, 2009.
Now, BO is going to trim the "deficit" by depriving US companies of the legal tax breaks for overseas manufacturing and sales—a whopping $210 billion over ten years. This is just $21 billion a year to reduce a multi trillion dollar annual deficit. Corporations do not really pay taxes; they simply raise prices to cover the cost of the taxes. So who are these corporations hiding profits overseas? Some, but not all, are General Electric, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson & Johnson, P & G, and Pfizer. With these few we have covered appliances, computers and electronics, household goods, food products, and pharmaceuticals. Voila, BO has generated inflation for every senior's household expenses. If you follow the CBO this is not inflation. Just call it what it is; a tax increase for every senior! (Read more. . .)
To sum up the Obama economic plan for America in general, and seniors in particular, let us turn to the renowned, successful billionaire Warren Buffett. Saturday May 2, Buffet said the U.S. government is generally taking the right actions to help the economy recover, and it should be given some benefit of the doubt because officials have been reacting in the middle of a crisis.
Two days later on May 4 the same Warren Buffet said, " The explosive rise of the U.S. budget deficit and debt burden will lead to serious inflation down the road. . ." This May 4 admission came only after a testy exchange with Sen. Judd Gregg, who suggested that President Obama's plans to hike federal spending would only increase the nation's staggering national debt. Buffett further stated, "A country that continuously expands its debt as a percentage of GDP and raises much of the money abroad to finance that, at some point, it's going to inflate its way out of the burden of that debt."
Obama's tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans is factually, a tax increase for 100 percent of Americans and a double whammy for seniors. If CBO’s projections are correct, it will be not only tax increases but also no COLA!
FactCheck.org says White House and Democrats are distorting Social Security issue: "The president claims Republican leaders are as eager to 'privatize' Social Security as they are to repeal his health care law. That's not true." Read Full Story
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.
Read Full Story
Many Washington insiders predict that any 2011 debate on Social Security will focus on the issues of benefit cuts and tax increases. In addition to raising the retirement age, which is now set to reach age 67 in 2027, specific cuts under consideration include lowering benefits and trimming annual cost-of-living increases.
Read Full Story
The private lives of young people are now so well documented on the internet that many will have to change their names on reaching adulthood, Google’s CEO has claimed.
Read Full Story
President Obama claimed that Republican leaders are pushing to make "privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda" should they regain control of the House and Senate. He said this is "right up there on their to-do list with repealing" parts of the new health care law. FactCheck.org finds the president’s claim to be mostly false.
Read Full Story
Older workers, who typically fared better than their younger counterparts in recessions, have been hit just as hard by layoffs this time around. As a result, the fraction of people 65 or older who are working has leveled off after a long period of growth. As of July, it stood at 15.9%, down from 16.3% in mid-2008.
Read Full Story Read All Recent News
