An inheritance they will never forget.
Cartoon by Townhall
Hard to believe isn’t it?
Stand by, I am with the government and I am here to help.
Cartoon by Townhall
As the best way to get out of a hole is to stop
digging so goes this story.
–AHA’s Richard Umbdenstock in USA Today: ‘Imagine living in a house with a crumbling foundation and trying to repair it by adding more bedrooms. A simplistic comparison, of course, but that is in essence what a provision to allow millions of 55- to 64-year-olds to buy in to Medicare would do to the financially struggling program. And that does not bode well for anyone, including seniors and the hospitals that serve them. … Health care reform is critical, and we are closer than ever. But reform that expands a program facing already tough financial challenges is not true reform.’
Rhetoric equals reality and America suffers.
Cartoon from TownHall
What is a few trillion dollars we don’t have?
Cartoon by Townhall
AND PREMIUMS COULD BE HIGH, reports NYT’s David Herszenhorn and Robert Pear: ‘Senate Democrats have provided few details about their latest health care proposal, but this much seems clear: Anyone who wants to buy the same health benefits as members of Congress, or to buy coverage through Medicare, should be prepared to fork over a large chunk of cash. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a family of four earning $54,000 in 2016, when the health legislation is fully in effect, would be eligible for a subsidy of $10,100 to help defray the cost of insurance under the health legislation being debated by the Senate. By then, one of the most popular federal plans, a nationwide Blue Cross and Blue Shield policy, is projected to cost more than $20,000. That could leave the family earning $54,000, slightly more than the current median household income, with monthly premium costs of more than $825. The Democrats’ proposal would also allow some people ages 55 to 64 to ‘buy in’ to Medicare, starting in 2011. That could cost about $7,600 a year per person or $15,200 for a couple, according to a budget office analysis of an earlier version of the concept. No subsidies would be available until 2014. … Preliminary back-of-the-envelope calculations reflect the steep challenges that Senate Democrats face as they await a new cost analysis of their plan. The numbers also reflect potential pitfalls in the politically appealing message to constituents that they might get benefits similar to those of federal lawmakers.’
The Greek government is facing default with debt being downgraded and the deficit going higher and higher.
How high? For the Greek government to ‘balance’ the budget it would have to cut half of its spending which would take unemployment to 20% and further risk inflation and currency devaluation.
Watch out US.
As predicted on this site months ago.
from politico:
VAT’S UP DOC? The Times says that the unsavory notion of imposing an across-the-board value added tax, a mainstay of European economies for decades, is gaining traction here as fear of trillion-dollar deficits grow.
‘Members of Congress, like their constituents, are squeamish about such ideas, instead suggesting spending cuts or higher taxes on the rich. But with a lack of political will to do the former, and a practical ceiling to how much revenue can be milked from the latter, economists across the political spectrum say a consumption tax may be inevitable once the economy fully recovers.
The favored route of economists is known as a value-added tax, which is a tax on goods and services that is collected at every step along the production chain, from raw material to a consumer’s shopping bag. Similar to a sales tax, it generally results in consumers paying more for the things they buy. The revenues could be used to pay for health care or other social programs, or just to pay down existing debt.
Like universal health care, every other industrialized country in the world already has a value-added tax (as do about 100 emerging countries). And also like universal health care, this once-taboo policy option has recently been invoked, at times begrudgingly, by many prominent Washingtonians, including the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi; John Podesta, who was co-chairman of President Obama’s transition team; and two former Federal Reserve chairmen, Alan Greenspan and Paul A. Volcker.’
More money for less results.
Cartoon from Townhall
