Nationalize Health Care...see Massachusettes first!

I will be the first to admit that I was in support of Mitt Romney for president once Fred Thompson bowed out. Mr. Romney had many strong proposals and I assure you is much better equipped to deal with the current economic and financial crisis than McCain and Obama put together. As he campaigned on knowing the real stimulus behind a growing economy and what it takes to make tough decisions that the CEO of our country needs to make, he also touted his MA "universal" health care program as being a success. This was one area I disagreed with him. So how is his health care program working in MA right now?

The WSJ had a good article about how the MA legislature had pushed for the bill, along with Romney (RomneyCare), and made the argument that if 'everyone' was covered by state sponsored health care that it will actually decrease the costs to cover that care. Furthermore, as spending collides with reality (i.e. price controls) the inevitable outcome is that there will be coverage restrictions and long waiting periods (see Canada, most of Europe and Australia). Obama endorses 'Universal Health Coverage' and as McCain pointed out to Obama in the debates, what if an individual doesn't obtain insurance under the "individual mandate...Are you going to fine them?" Obama's response was of course, "No." But what is MA doing in order to get individuals to obtain insurance under the individual mandate? You guessed it. Individuals are being fined, businesses are seeing increased penalties and democrats in the state have taxed insurers & hospitals, they have raised premiums and pumped up the state tobacco levy. It's still not enough money. So now what?

A panel has been appointed to figure out how to control costs and preserve "this grand experiment." One option being considered is to "exclude coverage of services of low priority/low value." Another would "limit coverage to services that produce the highest value when considering both clinical effectiveness and cost." Who do you think would make the decision here? Not patients or doctors. And yet another alternative is a 'overall spending cap' which is a 'limitation on the total amount of money available for health care services.'

The NYT had a page 1 article that reported on this issue and it was not a glowing review. The NYT reported that Mr. Romney and Democrats' 'expedient choice' that they made to defer "until another day any serious effort to control the state's runaway health costs...Those who led the 2006 effort said it would not have been feasible to enact universal coverage if the legislation had required heavy cost controls. The very stakeholders who were coaxed into the tent - doctors, hospitals, insurers and consumer groups - would probably have been driven into opposition by efforts to reduce their revenues and constrain their medical practices, they said." Reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues. Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers.

This brings us to DC where Obama, Kennedy, Baucus and Pete Stark. They are devising their own 'bait and switch' by first creating vast new entitlements than can never be repealed, then later take the less popular step of rationing care when its their last hope to save the Treasury. As the WSJ article points out, "The real lesson of Massachusettes is that reform proponents won't tell Americans the truth about what "universal" coverage really means: Runaway costs followed by price controls and bureaucratic rationing."

Welcome to the Universal Health Care debate and over $685 billion in taxpayer money to fund the program...Initially of course! Further bailouts will be required...VB will keep you posted.

Ban Black cars?

The CA legislature is proposing issuing a ban on black cars in CA beginning in 2012. Research proved (who didn't already know this) that black cars retain more heat inside the cabin of the car thereby causing more people to 'maybe' have to use the AC more to cool it down. This of course impacts our ozone layer as more energy is needed to cool down the effects of the suns radiant heat being trapped inside a black car. Obviously, anyone who has ever gotten in a car regardless of color after it has sat in the midday sun knows that to get the heat that is trapped in the car out quickly you simply lower the windows and the heat miraculously moves out of the car. If you don't believe me, try it next time you find yourself in a similar situation. Wow, can you believe it actually works?

Even more, its not that the CA loony toons want to just simply ban black cars its only really wanting to ban black cars that are painted with todays paints. Their consensus is that there are paints (not invented yet for autos) which reflect heat more than today's paints. However, their tests of this reflective paint comes from those paints on buildings. Just in case you are not the wizard that those with common sense are, paints for buildings and car are totally different.

What does this mean for the auto industry? Well, they cannot uniformly make black cars with reflective paints (not yet invented and tested) in some states and have a different black paint for all others. So this means that the entire auto industry will have to overhaul the paints it uses and that will of course soon become blanketed to all cars.

And you thought your state had crazy loons running the asylum. Come to California where the sun in the sky is high and the elected officials and environmentalists intellect in theory is much, much higher. God bless everyone and I am sure even the big guy in the sky is getting a chuckle out of this one!

Important Day in DC - White House

Obama today welcomes the top Banking CEO's to the oval office for a roundtable of meetings. Inside sources understand that this meeting is similar to the meeting that Paulson/Geithner had with the bank CEO's just 7 short months ago. In that meeting the ceo's were not allowed to leave until they signed on to the Paulson plan of rescuing the banks. Today hold's great interest because Obama will likely inform the banks that the bankruptcy proposal abuzz in DC is very likely to pass along with asking for their 'allied interest' in curing the financial meltdown. Well, if the BK law passes and judges are allowed to 'cramdown' mortgages to the level of the remaining equity value of the home you can expect bank ceo's to push back harshly and they will likely stand up to Obama about additional changes he should expect to occur.

All in all, 1) expect the housing mess to continue for about anotherr 2 - 3 years as values continue to decline, 2) expect banks to tighten lending requirements even more, 3) prepare for the financial arena to sieze up, 4) watch as more banks are mentioned in the 'nationalization' talk and 5) see how the govt allows the irresponsible borrowers get their 'get out of jail free' card while the banks get hosed therefore depressing banks shares and lending more and more.

Its Pennsylvania Avenue and the Hill that is pushing its 'populist' and class warfare agenda. This will ultimately come back to bite America in the ass. DC bites the hand that feeds the country and the world, expect the rabies from the rabid DC dog to be very infectious and lead to a lot longer illness. What DC should do is ask the banks, 'What should be done to lift the current stalemate off the lending arena? How can we help?' Instead, its the lawmakers who are imposing their will and instead of asking those type of questions they are entering the discussion not as a topic of discussion, but as a 'matter of fact' that its our way or the highway. Plan to see many bank ceo's to leave the white house and head back to NYC with grins but clutching their briefcases with white knuckles. This is a standoff that the American people will end up being left holding the bag on that will in no way be kind to us. But this will ultimately not be at the hands of the banks but of our masters in DC. Expect 2010 to be a good year for republicans at the voting booth.

AIG and the truth behind this controversy

Why do so many people in our great country ignore the true realities behind the AIG 'Bonus' fiasco? While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The provision, now called “the Dodd Amendment” by the Obama Administration provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax. So, obviously everyone who read the mammoth 1,070 page Stimulus bill prior to its passage knew about this right? Its safe to say that our politicians in DC on both sides of the aisle did not read the bill that was deemed 'vital to America's economic sustainability to keep it from the brink of collapse' in order to know that this provision was in there? I actually believe that none of our politicians read more than the 3 - 4 pages that impacted their earmark to their district. This is what should outrage the American people more. Of course, we should care about AIG and bonuses paid if it is taxpayer money...but when its the very government who agreed to use YOUR taxpayer money to pay these bonuses should your outrage not be guided toward the real culprits?

This is only the start as the govt will continue to hand out billions in taxpayer funds to save the auto industry, more banks, amtrak, our airports, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. Isn't it about time we the people stand up and actually demand that our politicians work FOR us rather than us being slaves to their agenda's?

Renewable energy and democrats double talk...

Living in California we are not short on left loons who want everyone to live in a tree, ride a bicycle, eat only the food we grow, have our pets spayed/neutered, and have all our energy derived from wind, solar and our trash. Yet, I can point to the windmill proposal off of Cape Cod as the first evidence that its the 'not in my backyard' response from Dems. You can research this issue on your own.

Fast forward to today, the much ballyhooed Diane Feinstein, senator from CA, today announced that she wants to have hundreds of thousands of acres in the CA desert reserved as a national monument. The land is between Ludlow and Needles. I have lived here for 8 years and have financed real estate all over the state and have never even heard of these two towns. Tells you how important it is to CA and its growth. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a speech last year at a Yale University climate-change conference: "If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it." So Feinstein wants to tell you in all other states that she is for renewable energy and so is CA but she just doesn't want that renewable energy (AND JOBS) here in her state. Why?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-desert25-2009mar25,0,6168582.story

Obama's press news conference

Did he really say that his budget cuts the deficit in half during his first term? He says the CBO, his team, and other forecasts at their 'most conservative estimates' show the deficit decreasing at the end of his term. Yet, the CBO (non-partisan group made up mostly of democrats btw) is the exact group who said that this budget increases the deficit $1 trillion/year for the next 10 years. And those are the conservative estimates by the way from the CBO. How does he really expect the American people to buy this garbage from his mouth? He keeps blaming the past administration yet he was the one who said the blame 'must stop.'

Its quite time that Obama owns up to the fact that the last player is no longer in the batter box and the fact of the matter is that its a 1 run difference late in the ballgame. Does he keep looking over his shoulder at the bench or does he stare down the pitcher and try to at least get on base and live to fight another batter? The bat is in his hands now...