quotable

"Once abolish God and the government becomes the God." -G.K. Chesterton
Showing posts with label Michael Moore is Fatter than Rush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Moore is Fatter than Rush. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

First They Came for the Health Insurance Companies...


I was lucky enough to catch this exchange on the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday. A pretty accurate prediction, I'm afraid, from a caller in the health insurance industry. These people were demonized, their intentions were questioned, the president did everything he could to destroy them. The federal government just ran over an entire private industry under the guise of "compassion." Welcome to fascism, boys and girls. We have one or two elections to change this. Stand strong and donate to a conservative Republican candidate for Congress in your state or county. They will need every penny they can get to unseat the Leviathan in Washington funded by George Soros and drooled over by the willing servants of the mainstream media.

Here's part of the transcript from the Rush Limbaugh show with a hat tip to neo-neocon.

CALLER: Okay. For time immemorial, both state and federal regulation — and also just the industry standard — has been a 65-35 percentage arrangement: 65 in claims payment and 35 for administration and claims expense. Withholding that you store for, you know, a major catastrophe or something.

HOST: This is to pay your claims?

CALLER: No, 65% is to pay the claims. Thirty-five percent is for everything else.

HOST: That means 35% is salaries, administration costs, and the offices, all the paperwork, that kind of thing?

CALLER: It’s that as well as, you know, we are required to keep a certain amount of cash on hand as a percentage of our claims exposure to pay claims. . . .

HOST: Now, I just want to make sure I understand here. State and federal regulations set those percentages?

CALLER: State and federal regulations, yes.

HOST: So if you wanted to have 85% set aside for claims, you couldn’t. You had to go at 65%?

CALLER: Exactly.

HOST: If you wanted 30% set aside for claims and the rest were administration, you couldn’t do it. It had to be 65%.

CALLER: That’s illegal, yes. It has to be 65-35, and there’s a couple of percentage either way, but generally when an insurance company falls outside of those guidelines, they are considered financially unstable.

HOST: Well, who audits you all to make sure you are within the ratio?

CALLER: We’re audited by the state insurance departments, primarily. There are some plans that are audited both state and federally, and then you have your private auditors who will come in as part of the stock market and that kind of thing. So we’re audited often.
. . .
CALLER: . . . So what Obama just did an hour and a half ago is make every insurance company in the country financially unstable. Remember, the 15% that we are left has not only to pay salaries, maintenance, upkeep of buildings; it also has to pay the 40% increased taxes that we’ve got. I mean, there’s just no way. You can’t do it.

HOST: Well, you’re getting a little bit ahead of me here. What did Obama sign that changes this 65-35 split? In what way did Obama now sign you into permanent instability?

CALLER: The provision in the Senate bill requires that all insurance companies pay 85% of premiums collected every year in claims.

HOST: So the 65 is now 85?

CALLER: Exactly. It doesn’t matter how much we increase the premium, it won’t matter.
. . .
HOST: . . . You originally thought that your industry would survive. You’re speaking industry or just your particular company?

CALLER: I would say 99% of all insurance companies, health insurance companies in the country.

HOST: Okay. So you originally thought you might have three to five years to stay in business under Obama. Now you said it’s two to three. Why?

CALLER: Because of the 85-15. Plus the additional expenses were going to incur. Additionally, the mandates, what people don’t understand when CMS (which is the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare) push a mandate down on insurance companies, we have to pay to complement those mandates. We don’t know how many of those are in this monstrosity. So we can have our mandate budget doubled, our taxes already up 40% or whatever it is, and our cash flow immediately cut.

HOST: Well, how can you know in advance of paying any claims? Because they’ve now shifted to 65% that you have to set aside for claims to 85%. How in the world can anybody know in advance of paying claims that it’s going to amount to 85%?

CALLER: Well –

HOST: Of course 65%? It seems to be like this is a ridiculous dictate made by people that have no clue how your business works.

CALLER: Well, they don’t have a clue. But the way that that amount of money is calculated is you look at the past year, past five years, past ten years, and you see what your claims expense have been those years. Then based on your enrollment and your demographics you project forward into what you expect to be paying in the future, in the next year and the next five years. So you can do that. It’s not precise to a dollar, but you usually get pretty close. What he’s done is by saying, for example, the preventative services now –

HOST: Those are free. Those are, quote, unquote, “free.”

CALLER: Yeah, exactly.

HOST: What the hell is a preventative service covered by an insurance company anyway?

CALLER: Well, that would be your colonoscopies, your mammograms, your yearly physicals, your lab work.

HOST: Oh, so those are free now! So if I want to go get a colonoscopy today and I have an insurance policy, I’m not going to pay for it?

CALLER: Exactly.

HOST: But you will.

CALLER: Well, we will. We’ll pay out the nose for it.

HOST: (laughing) Well…

CALLER: I know, bad analogy. I’m sorry.

HOST: It is Christmas!

CALLER: But, Sir –

HOST: Well, no, I don’t look at a colonoscopy as Christmas. Don’t misunderstand. . . . But it is Christmas in the sense that I’m not paying for it. I don’t know how you can stay in business even two to three years with this kind of thing happening to you this year alone.

CALLER: I don’t think we will and that’s why I am seriously considering leaving this industry. I’m updating my resume. You know, people who I work with — even people who voted for Obama and thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread — are shell-shocked.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Rush and the Left: E Pluribus Unum


Last week a megalomaniac in Colorado launched a balloon and called 911, claiming his six year old son had climbed inside. We all know now it was a hoax, and the media helped sensationalize it every step of the way. But that was hardly the biggest hoax that the media perpetuated last week. In fact, it was nothing compared to the fraudulent charges that so-called news organizations launched against talk show host Rush Limbaugh for simply seeking to buy an NFL franchise.


Rush Limbaugh, of course, is not the most popular person in the world. The way he presents the conservative case, though usually accurate and always entertaining, can be abrasive and off-putting to some, even conservatives on occasion. But you don't have to agree with Rush to come to his defense when the media attacks his character based on unsubstantiated allegations and false charges. That's what occurred last week when CNN, MSNDNC, and dozens of pundits started making up racist quotes that Rush Limbaugh never uttered.


Think about that. The media took on a mob mentality, making up facts to stop an American citizen from completing a private transaction in the free market. That's the stuff of authoritarian regimes and Pravda. It's banana republic in nature, showing a complete disregard for truth, justice, and reason. It's the exact type of abhorrent behavior that the Left accused the Bush administration of despite the facts in the Valerie Plame case. Now we see that the Left was merely projecting how they would use their own power.


Rush has been on the air for 15 hours a week, almost every week, for the last twenty years. In the age of YouTube, with all that audiotape, they couldn't find any evidence of incendiary, racist remarks to back up their claim that Rush was a bigot. So they made them up. Or they took quotes out of context where Rush was clearly being sarcastic. In one case he was quoting a liberal columnist.


But perhaps the worst part of all this is that no one in the media has expressed shame over their coverage. Even the retractions and apologies have been snarky. They may have missed the exact quote or even made it up, but still in their minds that doesn't prove that Rush isn't racist. In today's poor state of journalism, if the truth doesn't back up their agenda, the truth falls by the wayside.


These are dark days for America, brought to you by the most intolerant people our nation has produced - progressive Democrats. I don't think I'm understating that fact. I have never seen an angrier, more cowardly bunch than the progressive thought police. They undermine our freedom to act as individuals every step of the way, attacking not our ideas, but the very essence of our being. Disagree with their limited world view and you will be demonized, often labeled a racist, divisive, or an ignorant bigot.


The Left orchestrated a smear campaign against Rush, because they disagreed with him. Rather than debate his views point for point, they attacked him personally. They actively set out to destroy his pursuits outside of politics, to ruin him for his audacity to speak his mind. If it can happen to Rush, it can happen to anyone who finds themselves speaking truth to power. The Left's goal is to intimidate all conservatives into silence, not to debate but to suppress debate.


This runs completely contrary to the founding of this nation, but that's no surprise given the Left's hostility to America's founding principles. These people would shred the Constitution tomorrow if they could get away with it, because it's the only thing that prevents them from establishing a government that controls which rights are granted to the people, as opposed to a state where people grant power to the government.


If there's a phrase that best describes the democratic foundation of our country, it's "E Pluribus Unum," a latin inscription that means "Out of many, one." It's been a part of our national fabric since the founding, a motto that appears on the official seal of the United States as well as all of our coins.


Out of many, one. We are one nation made up of many ideas, many backgrounds, many religions, and many political persuasions. We don't agree on everything, but we elect a government that represents all of us, takes all differing opinions into account. We don't demonize those that disagree with us. We don't try to punish those that don't share our views. We take our debate to the open floor. We honor the traditions of this country and we make adjustments slowly after lengthy debate. America is a marketplace of ideas, and may the best ideas win.


E Pluribus Unum. This ideal is why we have succeeded like no other nation before us. It is the call to accept others, to work with others, to value individuals for their contributions to society rather than walk over individuals for fear their contributions may run counter to society.


Unfortunately, the Far Left in this country, the Obama administration, and to some extent the Democratic Party in general, no longer holds this to be true. We are supposed to be of one single mindset - to support the president as he passes his progressive agenda. Dissent and risk being called out as racist, homophobic, a hate monger, un-American, or standing in the way of progress. You will be vilified. Your motives will be questioned. For a political ideology so focused on diversity, progressives sure seem to have a problem with diverse points of view.

You might say the Democratic Party believes the motto reads backwards, "Out of one, many." They believe we are one collective, where the rights of the individual are infringed upon in the name of "the greater good." To defend the rights of many individuals is to break from the necessary conformity the Left desires to attain their collective Utopian vision. When the Left refers to the many, they refer only to the cosmetic ethnic makeup of the country. They don't wish to celebrate America as a whole. Instead they divide it up so that there's a celebration for black America, a celebration for gay America, a celebration for Islam or Jewish America. They fragment us and pit us against each other, try to make us envy one another, in the hopes we'll be too distracted to notice the loss of our liberties, negotiated behind closed doors.


So the Left pits minorities against Rush Limbaugh, organized by race-baiters like Al Sharpton. The Left pits a Van Jones or Anita Dunn against Glenn Beck. The leftist administration pits the media that they can influence, the media in line to receive huge amounts of money from the government (like General Electric, owner of NBC) against the independent-minded Fox News. They pit unions against tea party protesters. All of it is orchestrated from the highest levels of the left wing machine, whether it's Rahm Emanuel, the Center for American Progress, or MoveOn.org. If you don't believe me, just take a look at this video where Juan Williams, a liberal Democrat, starts to wake up to the truth behind the politics of personal destruction as left wing attack dogs try to paint him as "a house n**ger." Remind me again why conservatives are considered the divisive ones.


First they came for the banks. Then they came for the insurance companies. Then they came for Rush and Glenn Beck and Fox News. How long do you want to wait to stand up before they come after you?

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Michael Moore: Walmart Is an Evil Corporation Where You Can Buy All My Flicks on DVD


In Michael Moore's latest movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story", he attacks Walmart for filing (and in some cases collecting on) life insurance policies on employees during the 1990s. The company stopped the practice (which was apparently for tax purposes) nearly 15 years ago and has settled several lawsuits since then. Still, that's not enough time for Moore, who singles out one such incident in his new movie as proof that Walmart is a greedy company that deserves our scorn.

Of course, that hasn't stopped Moore from trying to make a few bucks by selling his own DVDs at the Walmart.com website. But hey, if it's okay for President Obama to cut a deal with an evil tyrant like Ahmadinejad, it must be okay for an "anti-capitalist" to cut a deal with Sam Walton's evil empire of low, low prices. So long as it lines the progressive filmmaker's pockets.

That's right. Capitalism is so bad even Moore can't resist it. He personally made over $20 million from "Fahrenheit 911", a movie which undoubtedly helped put Obama in the White House. Did I mention Moore's agent is Ari Emanuel, brother of Obama's chief-of-staff? And word on the street is Moore has a lucrative DVD contract that earns him considerable money from all those Walmart sales. Perhaps they should have called it "National Lampoon's Capitalism." If only Michael Moore's principles ran as deep as his giant layer of fat.

By the way, if you ask me Walmart shoppers are being way too generous with their stars.



5 out of 5 5 out of 5
(7 Customer Reviews )
Sicko (Widescreen)
Connect & Share:
Ratings and Reviews

5 out of 5 5 out of 5
(7 Customer Ratings)

$8.86
List Price: $14.95
You Save: $6.09 (41%)
DVD: Sicko (Widescreen)

Q&A Exchange


Director: Michael Moore
Format: DVD
Buy Online (What's this?)
Price
Shipping & Additional Information





Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Michael Moore is a Capitalist Pig


If there's a bigger farce in the world of "documentary filmmaking", I can't think of one. Millionaire Michael Moore making a movie bashing capitalism is like Jacques Cousteau making a film bashing SCUBA diving. It's like Steven Spielberg making a film against film. It's like Barack Obama apologizing for America's "horrible" past (a country so horrible we elected him, mind you) and then trying to convince the world to send us the Olympics.

Where did you get your millions from, Michael? Making documentary films for the BBC about the entomology of stag beetles? Filming travelogues for Siberia? Not hardly. There's a reason you never see a fat documentary filmmaker in China. It's called the free enterprise system, something China lacks. The only country where a self-righteous, fat, screaming, egotistical loudmouth without any other talent can rise above mediocrity and get filthy rich is the United States of America. So be glad you were born in the land of opportunity.

Yep, there's nothing like a millionaire charging everyday Americans $12 to see how they are being ripped off by millionaires. I wouldn't be surprised if I stopped in at Burger King on the way to the theater and saw them promoting "Capitalism: A Love Story" travel mugs. Collect all four!

Michael Moore is a capitalist pig, the biggest hypocrite of all. And if you don't believe me, just visit one of the lovely online stores where he sells his overpriced wares.


AMAZON











BEST BUY













WALMART

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Fat Government in a Little Coat


If you've ever attempted to put on clothing that says "one size fits all" only to look in the mirror and feel like Michael Moore wearing a coat designed for actual humans and not elephants, you've experienced the essence of universal health care. While most people think of universal as meaning everyone gets covered, this is only part of the definition. What they fail to focus on, and why it's such a horrible idea, is that everyone gets covered exactly the same. In other words, "Fat guy in a little coooaaaat."


Fat guys in little coats. Little guys in fat coats. This is what all socialist programs are really about. The typical progressive can't stand the idea that someone might get better health care than somebody else, even if you have worked hard, have access to doctors that have worked hard, and are willing to pay for it. That wouldn't be fair. Only Congress are entitled to such perks. So they come up with a size that fits everyone, except it leaves most of us inadequately covered and exposed to bad policy by bureaucrats.


Since it's not feasible or affordable to raise everyone up to the highest standard of health care (any more than it is for everyone to drive a porsche), progressives install government stooges (President Obama calls them "experts") to set minimum standards, recommend affordable treatments, and reject expensive and/or innovative ones. You know, the ones that might actually save your life. This is the same reason why those that receive universal health care in England and Western Europe are three to four times less likely than Americans to survive certain types of cancer, including breast and prostate cancer. In Britain, for example:

Just 41.4 per cent of men and 51.4 per cent of women found to have cancer survive longer than five years after diagnosis - down on the 42 per cent and 53 per cent figures previously reported. Experts blame NHS waste, drug rationing and a lack of cancer specialists for the shameful showing.

To which you might ask: If you aren't free to choose the treatment that could save your life, are you really free? Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, architects of our Declaration of Independence, would probably wonder the same thing. What did we have a revolution for if we are going to allow the central government to make such life and death decisions? Therein lies the trillion dollar question and the problem with universal health coverage or Obamacare or whatever you want to call it. I'm gonna call it state-controlled health care, because I feel that's the name that best describes it. The state sets the rules and the state controls what care you get and when you get it. And you pay them for this "privilege". Yet the mainstream media wonders why this is a tough sell in America?!


With state-controlled health care, the government looks over your doctor's shoulder and evaluates every decision he or she makes to see if it's in line with their bureaucratic rules and regulations. These have mostly been determined by bean counters for cost-effectiveness, and in fact, even the patient's contribution to society will be evaluated. Let me stress that again. The worthiness of the patient will be questioned and evaluated. How many "quality years" are they likely to gain from an expensive procedure or surgery? If they're over 80 and the medical procedure will only add two or three years to their life, maybe it's better, as President Obama said, to just have them take a pain killer.


For effect, I used to modestly propose that if you really wanted to reduce the carbon footprint that supposedly contributes to global warming, then we could simply eliminate citizens when they reached a certain age, say 75 or 80. Humanely, of course. The net result being this would reduce consumption of products which add to greenhouse gasses while conserving resources that younger generations need. But my Jonathan Swift solution doesn't seem so satirical now. We have a president who wants to determine your treatment based on how much money it saves the government. And if we're to take Obama's Science Czar at his word, eugenics can't be far behind as a possible solution. Hopefully, not the Final Solution.


Rather than providing more opportunities for more people at the starting line, allowing families to pay into tax-free health savings accounts for example, or letting everyone keep more of their hard-earned paychecks, progressives set their bleeding hearts to social engineering, viewing pictures of inequality one snapshot at a time and setting about to even the playing field, never once examining what's on the videotape that allowed some people to get further ahead than others. Hint: it's not dependency on government.


With state-controlled health care, we are giving up our most important right, our right to life (which let's be honest, liberals have always questioned), and allowing the government to choose doctors and treatments for us based on their needs, not ours. Under Obama's reform, you may not get the treatment you need because it's too expensive. Or you might have to wait too long for the treatment, in which time your condition worsens and during which you are unable to work. While the health care itself doesn't technically cost you money, it's easy to argue that you pay a higher price in pain, suffering, and lost wages.


Progressives are quick to state their opposition to the government interfering in the womb, where oddly enough the government would be stepping in to protect life, but they are A-okay with government interference in the I.C.U. And if it's getting too expensive, your condition is improving too slowly, and they need that hospital bed for an ACORN member, it's good night, nurse. Literally.


This is a choice of wealth (for the government, not the individual) before liberty, servitude before freedom. Passing socialized medicine, universal health coverage, Obamacare, whatever you want to call it, is quite frankly a reversal of our Declaration of Independence. This is tyranny hiding behind the stethoscope, supersized government wearing the little white doctor's coat and offering a diagnosis that flies against the Hippocratic Oath. The truth of the matter is state-controlled health care doesn't cure the sick, it condemns the sick.


We're trading the best health care in the world for the government's best attempt to manage it. This is not capitalism or free enterprise. And it sure as hell isn't liberty. This is a blatant power-grab by a far left statist who believes that what belongs to you belongs to everyone, and by everyone he means the federal government.


Ben Franklin once said, "The only things certain in this world are death and taxes." President Obama is not only committed to their certainty, but he is determined to bring them both about sooner.