NUNCA HUBO UN PRESIDENTE COMO OBAMA QUE HAYA HECHO TANTO DAÑO EN TAN POCO TIEMPO

[siboneyes]

Worse than Jimmy Carter

by Nile Gardiner (more by this author)

Posted 04/29/2009 ET

It is hard to think of a U.S. president who has done more to weaken his country on the world stage in such a short period of time -- and that includes the hapless Jimmy Carter. President Obama’s first 100 days as a world leader have been an overwhelming failure, a damaging mix of diplomatic gaffes and humiliating apologies for America’s past, combined with a naïve outreach to American-hating tyrants and despots, as well as an overwhelming indifference towards traditional allies, including Britain.

While the Anglo-American Special Relationship has been downgraded to a “special partnership”, the new president has been busy sending polite video messages to the Mullahs of Tehran, bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, and having a cuddly chat with Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez. In little over three months, the fledgling president has also succeeded in jettisoning the War on Terror, alienating America’s intelligence services with the selective release of interrogation memos, while undercutting the armed forces with a series of threatened defence cuts.

There have been moments when the new administration has shown some backbone – the decision to withdraw from the farcical UN Durban Review Conference, the ordering of missile strikes against al-Qaeda and Taliban positions inside Pakistan, the deployment of 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, for example. But these have been rare exceptions to an overall foreign policy that has projected weakness, indifference and even incompetence, unbefitting of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

And what has Washington gained in return for its new approach? More sneering condescension from continental European leaders, a refusal to fight in Afghanistan from most of the NATO alliance, an increase in sabre-rattling from North Korea, an acceleration of Iran’s nuclear programme, a renewed assertiveness from Moscow, and an insulting book on the evils of Western imperialism as a gift from Chavez.

The new approach is the product of an American-Idol-sty. le White House obsessed with spin and image at the expense of American power. There is, unfortunately, no Simon Cowell figure to tell the president that his performance doesn’t measure up. No matter how hard Obama tries to please his global audience and how much they superficially cheer, if there is no substance to the policy or the basic message is wrong, it simply won’t work.

Barack Obama has barely an ounce of foreign policy experience and it clearly shows. For much of his recent tour of Europe, the president was treated like a rock star but acted like a deer in the headlights, clearly outmaneuvered at both the G-20 and NATO summits by vastly more experienced politicians such as Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel.

Obama’s speech in Strasbourg, where he condemned America’s “arrogance”, has to rank as one of the most damaging, if not the most damaging speech by a U.S. president on foreign soil in modern times. It is impossible to imagine the leader of any European nation, with the unique exception of Germany’s contrition over its Nazi past, launching an attack like this upon his or her own country on foreign land. It was the humbling of a superpower in front of a largely French and German audience, who cheered every word the president spoke trashing his own nation’s record.

There was no mention by Obama in his speech of the sacrifice of tens of thousands of American GIs who died liberating France from fascist occupation, and no recognition of the huge role the United States played in keeping Europe free. It was a speech that quite easily could have been written in parts by Jacques Chirac or Dominique de Villepin, railing against the American “hyper-power”.  

Barack Obama has launched a new era of self-flagellation for America that serves only to humiliate the American people, and embolden Washington’s enemies. From Tehran to Pyongyang, Moscow to Caracas, dictatorial regimes have been given a new lease of life by a U.S. administration that threatens little and barely talks about the advancement of freedom. The spread of individual liberty and human rights are hardly priority goals for a White House that is struggling to find a dictator it isn’t willing to talk to in the name of its weak-kneed new policy of “engagement”.

Even so-called “moderate” elements of the Taliban are being identified for talks with the new administration, further confirmation that Obama has dropped the concept of a global war against Islamist terrorism. The old War on Terror is now an “Overseas Contingency Operation”, a symbol of the new administration’s unwillingness to recognize that the free world is actually engaged in a global war against a brutal and determined enemy, that may take decades to win. Obama has also shown ambivalence over the deployment of a missile defense system, a vital shield against a possible Iranian nuclear threat.

President Obama has unfortunately shown little sign he is willing to lead an America that is genuinely respected by its allies and feared by its enemies. Obama has acted as a quintessentially European-leader, and at times cannot decide whether he is the president of the United States or the European Union. His actions in his first 100 days have served largely to undermine American power and strengthen its foes. He is off to a spectacularly bad start as a world leader, one that will be hard to reverse.  

There is much that Barack Obama can learn from great world leaders such as Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill, who all understood the importance of aggressively advancing the national interest and projecting strength to defeat the enemies of the West. All three succeeded in standing up to and defeating tyranny, whether in the shape of the Soviet empire or Nazi Germany. Obama’s rash decision, however, to throw a bust of Churchill out of the Oval Office, is a distinctly bad omen for the remainder of his presidency.

Nile Gardiner is the Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation.

[danielalexander]

El pueblo le reclama al presidente Obama que no aumente la deuda de nuestra nación y continué gastando el futuro de nuestro hijos.
Sin embargo, el hace caso omiso al reclamo y plantea que creara el sistema (un millón de veces fracasado) sistema universal de salud que costara alrededor de 2.5 trillones de dólares. Las elecciones terminaron ya no hay razón para escuchar el reclamo de los ciudadanos.
Analysis: Deficit threatens Obama's popularity
WASHINGTON – The solid armor of President Barack Obama's popularity may have a crack — a nearly $2 trillion-sized one.
There's continued and considerable public restiveness over eye-popping federal budget deficits, a potential danger for both Obama's ambitious agenda and his political fortunes.
About $1.3 trillion when Obama took office, this year's deficit now is on track to soar to a record $1.85 trillion after his massive influx of federal spending to stimulate the moribund economy, help struggling homeowners, stabilize frozen credit markets and bail out troubled banks, automakers and insurers.
With those actions, Obama has greatly expanded the government's reach — and, polls say, stoked people's concerns.
From the start, Obama has been sensitive about skyrocketing deficits. He's grown only more so lately.
Shortly after his November election, the president-elect said: "We shouldn't worry about the deficit next year or even the year after" because righting the economy should take precedence. Seven months later, he declared that the deficit problem "keeps me awake at night."
He's mindful of this: The public's lingering wariness over a government plunging deeper into the red threatens to turn into a major liability. As he said in April: "We also have a deficit — a confidence gap — when it comes to the American people."
Recent polls indicate as much.
The nonpartisan Pew Research Center reported Thursday that a majority of Americans — 55 percent — are optimistic that Obama will eventually reduce the budget deficit. But that's a smaller slice than the 61 percent of people who approve of him generally.
And according to a new New York Times/CBS News poll, 60 percent of Americans don't believe the president has a strategy for dealing with the deficit.
Also, 58 percent in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll want Obama to make controlling the deficit a higher priority than a speedy economic recovery. And, nearly half expressed a "great deal" of concern about the increase of government intervention in American life that Obama has overseen, from taking over companies to influencing corporate bonuses and seeking to add government-sponsored insurance to the health care system.
Those growing more wary are mostly political independents, the fickle swing voters who decide close elections. They were critical to the winning coalition Obama assembled last fall and certainly will be critical again if he runs in 2012.
In the nearer term, if voters turn on Obama, it could threaten the Democrats' comfortable majority in Congress and make it difficult for the president to BLOCKED approval for his ambitious proposals to overhaul health care, revamp energy policy and institute sweeping economic reforms. Democrats up for re-election in 2010 will gladly attach themselves to Obama if he's successful — but they also will just as quickly distance themselves from him amid failure.
So far, the reservoir of concern hasn't dragged down Obama's overall approval ratings. Despite disappointing economic progress and international turmoil, solid majorities still view the president favorably and larger numbers than in years say the country is on the right track. And, for now at least, people blame former President George W. Bush for the deficit more than they blame Obama, by far.
But the GOP senses a rare opportunity for a potent message against the popular president. Republicans are hammering Obama as a big-spending, big-government, big-deficit leader.
Democrats argue the public's anxiety is temporary.
"We're in an intermediate period where people have seen government take action but they haven't seen the impact yet. They will," said Matt Bennett, vice president of the centrist Democratic group Third Way. "The concerns will drop when it starts looking like the government's action is helping their families and communities."
Not wanting to chance it, the White House repeatedly looks for ways to stress its commitment to reducing both deficits and government intervention.
Obama has promised to cut the deficit by half within his four-year term. He also focuses just as much on the need to drastically cut the expense of health care as he does on expanding coverage. He pledges at every turn that he won't accept any plan that increases the deficit. Expect this to continue as the debate heats up into the summer and fall.
Critics have mocked some of his efforts.
Using his first formal Cabinet meeting in April for a frugality push, Obama gave agency chieftains 90 days to find $100 million in savings. Calculators immediately revealed the figure as a pittance representing just one-twentieth of 1 percent of the federal deficit for March alone.
Last week, he proposed requiring Congress to pay for new spending programs and tax cuts without further exploding deficits. It was quickly criticized as significantly weaker than a "pay-as-you-go" proposal Obama had put forth just a month before that carved out trillions in exceptions and extended the timeframe.
It's also not clear the public will buy Obama's pledge that a health care overhaul won't be a budget-buster. The estimated price tag is shockingly huge — $1 trillion over 10 years by Obama's estimation and $1.6 trillion for one bill under serious consideration.
The White House strategy is to take the long view, hoping that pushing ahead with the kind of policies on which Obama campaigned will win him points with voters and that the economy will right itself in time for public ire to fade.
"The president would tell you that he's going to do what he thinks is in the best interest of the American economy," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "Some of those things will be ... more popular than others."

[siboneyes]

THE AXIS OBAMA/TRIAL LAWYERS WILL COMPLETELY DESTROY THE HEALTH SYSTEM OF U.S.

Surprise! Health-Care Bill Contains Massive Gift to Trial Lawyers   

[Mark Hemingway]

Overlawyered:

For some time now the federal government has been intensifying its pursuit of what are sometimes known as “Medicare liens” against third party defendants (more). In the simplest scenario — not the only scenario, as we will see below — someone is injured in, say, a car accident, and has the resulting medical bills paid by Medicare. They then sue and successfully obtain damages from the other driver. At this point Medicare (i.e. the government) is free to demand that the beneficiary hand over some or all of the settlement to cover the cost of the health care, but under some conditions it is also free to file its own action to recover the medical outlays directly from the negligent driver (who in some circumstances might even wind up paying for the same medical bills twice). It might do this if, for example, it does not expect to get a collectible judgment from the beneficiary.

The newly added language in the Thursday morning version of the health bill (for those following along, it’s Section 1620 on pp. 713-721) would greatly expand the scope of these suits against third parties, while doing something entirely new: allow freelance lawyers to file them on behalf of the government — without asking permission — and collect rich bounties if they manage thereby to extract money from the defendants. Lawyers will recognize this as a qui tam procedure, of the sort that has led to a growing body of litigation filed by freelance bounty-hunters against universities, defense contractors and others alleged to have overcharged the government.

And it gets worse. There's much more at the link.

OBAMA NOS LLEVA HACIA UNA NACION SIN MEDICOS CONTROLADA POR PICA PLEITOS.

[rociodelbosque]

Yo pienso es porque Obama es un muchachon de triciclo, yo se que soy bien joven para decirlo, pero Obama se ve inexperto.  Y dicen ademas que el que anda y muchacho chiquito amanece chorreado.  Que terrible para mi,  yo no vote por OBAMA y sin embargo y asi  me esta castigando con sus deseos de acabar con la prosperidad de la clase que trabaja.

[courage04ever]

Breaking the Bank

by murphy on July 16, 2009

in 411 on the 111, congress!

The C0ngressional Budget Office says the House health care bill will NOT cut costs but WILL increase costs to the federal government. Here in Massachusetts our health insurance reform has worked beautifully. We now only have 2.6% of our residents uninsured. The national average is 15% uninsured. So it seems that getting poor and lower-working class citizens covered is not all that difficult to do. What IS difficult is lowering the COST of providing universal health coverage. And it’s not a small problem. Right now, the “safety net” hospital in Boston faces a devastating budget shortfall. They need more money from the State but the State says it can’t afford to increase payments. The health care bill carries a $1.5 TRILLION dollar price tag. We KNOW we’re going to have to pay for this, but I don’t think we can afford to screw it up. Who trusts this Congress and administration to get it right?

Congress is watching the president’s falling poll numbers (they don’t have the stomach to look at their OWN poll numbers. Yikes.) They’re also looking forward to the 2010 elections and I think they’re acting out of panic — get it done, get it done, get it done. Not a good place to be working from.

“WASHINGTON—Democrats’ health care bills won’t meet President Barack Obama’s goal of slowing the ruinous rise of medical costs, Congress’ budget umpire warned on Thursday, giving weight to critics who say the legislation could break the bank.

The sobering assessment from Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf came as House Democrats pushed to pass a partisan bill through committees, while in the Senate a small group of lawmakers continued to seek a deal that could win support from both political parties.

With the pressure mounting on all sides, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., dismissed as “a waste of money” a television ad campaign by Obama’s political organization aiming to nudge moderate Democrats off the fence. He called it “Democrats running ads against Democrats.”

–snip–

Explained Elmendorf: “In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.”

[siboneyes]

OBAMACARE: THE EPITOME OF ARROGANCE

Arrogance
Townhall.com ^ | July 22, 2009 | John Stossel

It’s crazy for a group of mere mortals to try to design 15 percent of the U.S. economy. It’s even crazier to do it by August.

Yet that is what some members of Congress presume to do. They intend, as the New York Times puts it, “to reinvent the nation’s health care system”.

Let that sink in. A handful of people who probably never even ran a small business actually think they can reinvent the health care system.

Politicians and bureaucrats clearly have no idea how complicated markets are. Every day people make countless tradeoffs, in all areas of life, based on subjective value judgments and personal information as they delicately balance their interests, needs and wants. Who is in a better VISITA UNIVISION.COM PARA MAS INFORMACION than they to tailor those choices to best serve their purposes? Yet the politicians believe they can plan the medical market the way you plan a birthday party.

Leave aside how much power the state would have to exercise over us to run the medical system. Suffice it say that if government attempts to control our total medical spending, sooner or later, it will have to control us.

Also leave aside the inevitable huge cost of any such program. The administration estimates $1.5 trillion over 10 years with no increase in the deficit. But no one should take that seriously. When it comes to projecting future costs, these guys may as well be reading chicken entrails. In 1965, hospitalization coverage under Medicare was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual price tag was $66 billion.

The sober Congressional Budget Office debunked the reformers’ cost projections. Trust us, Obama says. “At the end of the day, we’ll have significant cost controls,” presidential adviser David Axelrod said. Give me a break.

Now focus on the spectacle of that handful of men and women daring to think they can design the medical marketplace. They would empower an even smaller group to determine — for millions of diverse Americans — which medical treatments are worthy and at what price.

How do these arrogant, presumptuous politicians believe they can know enough to plan for the rest of us? Who do they think they are? Under cover of helping uninsured people get medical care, they live out their megalomaniacal social-engineering fantasies — putting our physical and economic health at risk in the process.

Will the American people say “Enough!”?

I fear not, based on the comments on my blog. When I argued last week that medical insurance makes people indifferent to costs, I got comments like: “I guess the 47 million people who don’t have health care should just die, right, John?” “You will always be a shill for corporate America.”

Like the politicians, most people are oblivious to F.A. Hayek’s insight that the critical information needed to run an economy — or even 15 percent of one — doesn’t exist in any one place where it is accessible to central planners. Instead, it is scattered piecemeal among millions of people. All those people put together are far wiser and better informed than Congress could ever be. Only markets — private property, free exchange and the price system — can put this knowledge at the disposal of entrepreneurs and consumers, ensuring the system will serve the people and not just the political class.

This is no less true for medical care than for food, clothing and shelter. It is profit-seeking entrepreneurship that gave us birth control pills, robot limbs, Lasik surgery and so many other good things that make our lives longer and more pain free.

To the extent the politicians ignore this, they are the enemy of our well-being. The belief that they can take care of us is rank superstition.

Who will save us from these despots? What Adam Smith said about the economic planner applies here, too: The politician who tries to design the medical marketplace would “assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”

[danielalexander]

Porque siempre el Socialismo fracasa y el Capitalismo triunfa



Cuando alguien solo concentra su atención a un mundo material, y su mundo espiritual es inexistente, será inconcientemente una victima fácil de la propaganda liberal y el radicalismo.
La mayoría de los “pobres” en nuestra sociedad son envenenados por la propaganda liberal, la cual busca, estimular el individualismo, el egoísmo, y el revanchismo. Recordándole a ellos que no es “justo “que ellos sean pobre cuando otros son sumamente ricos. Y le exhortan que miren siempre hacia el gobierno y reclamen justicia social. Culpando siempre ha el partido de derecha o el capitalismo, de todos los males que ellos padecen.
Esta es la base de la propaganda anticapitalista utilizada hasta el cansancio por todos los dictadores socialista y los movimientos izquierdista. Ellos quieren crear a un ciudadano enojado e indignado. cuando ese objetivo esta creado, entonces la propaganda socialista que ofrece de un cambio justo y digno, toma nuevos matices.
La propaganda socialista le promete.
1. Retribución de las riquezas.

Realidad: Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill : plantearía que lo injusto del capitalismo es la no igualdad de las riquezas, y lo injusto del socialismo es la igualdad de la pobreza.


Sin embargo la ley fundamental de la sociedad socialista es la inexistencia de la propiedad privada, todo pertenece al gobierno socialista, cuando les quita a “unos” nunca lo transfiere ha “otros”.El gobierno mantiene las propiedades confiscadas, fomentadas de una manera escalonada, todas las propiedades son transferida ha el gobierno socialista, lo que verdaderamente sucede es la “expropiación de las riquezas”.

Bajo el lema de la” redistribución de las riquezas” Fidel Castro nacionalizo todas las propiedades privadas, según el al servicio del gobierno revolucionario único capaz de entender las necesidades de sus ciudadanos, después de casi 50 años los cubanos aun están esperando la redistribución que nunca llego, lo que si llego fue la “redistribución de la pobreza”, hoy todos son pobres, en las peores condiciones humanas, además de no contar con las mínimas libertades y garantías sociales.


2. Igualdad de clases, donde ya no existan ricos, clases medias o pobres.

Todas las propiedades son confiscadas y los gobiernos socialistas nacionalizan el sector financiero, tomando control de todas las riquezas individuales acumulada, aumentan los impuestos y penaliza el talento y la capacidad de sus ciudadanos y nacionalizan el sector productivo y de servicio. Conllevando a la ruina total del sector empresarial, la clase media y rica desaparece y toda la sociedad es estabilizada en un solo grupo totalmente dependiente del gobierno, clase pobre.
El gobierno crea una dependencia permanente como manera de controlar las libertades de sus ciudadanos, reduce las expectativas de vida a un grado mínimo de sobrevivencia, de esta manera las aspiraciones del progresó dejaran de existir. En estas condiciones el ser humano por naturaleza pierde la capacidad de liderazgo para convertirse en seguidor.
Ningún ciudadano ha conseguido el progresó individual en una sociedad socialista, Jamás.


El progresó solo sucede en sociedades capitalista bajo libertades democráticas, que estimula el progresó y el talento individual y a través de créditos federales permiten a sus ciudadanos lograr sus metas económicas y vivir en libertad y democracia plena.
La sociedad capitalista no fue creada para determinar quienes serán ricos, eso solo depende de las expectativas y metas de cada individuó, el cual fue descrito por el termino france laissez-faire – el cual significa (deja que los ciudadanos hagan y escojan). Que buscaba que los gobiernos no interfirieran con las leyes naturales de la economía. Esta ley encontró apoyo en un economista y filosofo escoses Adam Smith el cual escribió, en su libro –la riquezas de las naciones- que las persona pensaban y actuaban de acorde a sus propios intereses y expectativas, y que toda la sociedad será beneficiada si el talento y la capacidad de sus ciudadanos no solo respectada, sino además estimulada, hasta que esta alcanzara su máxima expectativa.
Por ejemplo, si alguien inventa un producto que mejores las condiciones de vida de todos los ciudadanos, no solo el inventor será recompensado, sino además, generaras nuevos empleos y toda la sociedad en conjunto será la beneficiaria del talento de unos en beneficios a todos. Saludo

[danielalexander]

El dato mas negativo de la administración de Bush fue 6.5 % de desempleo. El promedio anual de su administración 4.9 % dos punto menos que la administración de Bill Clinton. Y el 6.5 % sucedió en noviembre del 2008 cuando ya el presidente Barack Obama quien había ganado las elecciones en ese mismo mes.
Sin embargo según el periódico oficial del partido demócrata, el New York Times el desempleo real en julio 15- 2009 estaba en 16.1% nivel nacional. Si hoy tuviéramos el peor dato económico de la administración Bush estuviéramos en la gloria. Los errores sistemáticos de esta nueva administración han triplicado todos los datos económicos negativos en tan solo 150 días.
Acusar ha Bush por el caos creado por esta administración no es otra cosa, que una sandez de fin de semana. Solo creíble por ingenuos ignorantes.


TABLE A - Civilian
Labor Force, Employment,
Unemployment and Unemployment Rate 2008 /1
ANNUAL
UNITED STATES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC AVERAGE
Unemployment
Rate 5.8% 5.4% 5.2% 5.2% 4.8% 5.2% 5.7% 6.0% 6.01% 6.1% 6.5% 7.1%


National budget deficits
President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.
What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:
• President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
• President Bush began a string of expensive finan¬cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
• President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle¬ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern¬ment health care fund.
• President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi¬dent Obama would double it.
• President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in¬creased this spending by 20 percent.
• President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
• President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

[siboneyes]

Congressional Budget Office Deals NEW Blow To OBAMACARE
7/25/2009

If Congress wants to get their Obamacare bill passed they would do well to lose the phone number of the Congressional Budget Office, for the second time in two weeks the CBO has dealt a serious blow to the Democratic party sales pitch for the President’s signature health care plan.

Testifying before Congress in mid-July CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose “the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.” Though President Obama and Democratic leaders had constantly said that controlling the skyrocketing growth in spending on government health programs such as Medicaid and Medicare is their top priority, the reform measures put forth so far would not fulfill their pledge to “bend the cost curve” downward, Elmendorf said. Instead, he said, “The curve is being raised.”

Last week the house agreed to a White House-backed proposal to create an outside panel with the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. This panel was going to come up with all those savings to help pay for Obamacare. Today, the CBO head shot down another Obamacare myth. That proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years which wont do much to offset Obamacare’s $1-1.6 trillion price tag. In a letter to Congressman Steny Hoyer, Elmendorf said in part:

The estimated savings of $2 billion over the 2016–2019 period reflect CBO’s assessment of the likely scope of the proposals that the council would make and the probability that its recommendations would be implemented by the President. (The possibility that the Congress might enact future legislation to disapprove those recommendations is not relevant to CBO’s estimate of the savings that would arise from enacting the IMAC proposal into law; instead, the impact of legislation disapproving the recommendations would be reflected in CBO’s cost estimate for that subsequent legislation. See the section “Budgetary Treatment” below.) Under H.R. 3200, as introduced, payment rates for nearly all Medicare services would grow more slowly than anticipated inflation. Thus, CBO considers it unlikely that IMAC would recommend substantial additional savings (relative to savings already expected under H.R. 3200) through further reductions in Medicare payment rates. In addition, several specific features of the legislation in its current form would reduce the likelihood that the council would recommend reductions in payment rates or reforms in the delivery system for Medicare services that would yield much greater budgetary savings:

The proposed legislation states that IMAC’s recommendations cannotthe council to reduce such expenditures nor does it establish any target for such reductions.
generate increased Medicare expenditures, but it does not explicitly direct
As proposed, the composition of the council could be weighted toward medical providers who might not be inclined to recommend cuts in payments to providers or significant changes to the delivery system.
Some types of fundamental program changes would probably require study and experimentation before they could be implemented, and it is not clear what resources the council would have to develop recommendations involving such changes. Under the proposal, IMAC might have limited access to the resources of CMS and its Office of the Actuary for directing the study of reform ideas that could offer some promise of significant budgetary savings.

Significant changes in the way payments to providers are made and in the incentives facing beneficiaries would probably be necessary to obtain substantial savings. Outside influence on the council and the President, however, might make it politically difficult to recommend and implement reforms that could be viewed as undesirable by interested parties. Medical providers, beneficiaries, and Members of Congress would probably exert considerable pressure on both IMAC and the President to balance recommendations for savings against beneficiaries’ concerns about the costs and availability of medical services and the interests of those receiving Medicare payments for delivering services.

Finally, the first year of potential savings under the proposal is 2016. The five-year start-up period (and one-year lag in implementation) called for by the draft legislation would give the council some time to study reform proposals. However, concrete new evidence upon which to base some kinds of large-scale reforms might not be available for some time hereafter.
Is it me, or does it seem that just about everything the President and team tells us about this bill is false?

Either way, this is another blow to Obamacare as the “Blue Dog” democrats who already feel the plan is too expensive will see this latest CBO as a further vindication of their opposition.

[danielalexander]

Yo siempre he sido un afiliado al movimiento conservador, y los valores éticos y morales que ellos representan.
El movimiento conservador ha sido el líder del progreso económico y el respecto a las individualidades de todos los ciudadanos. Gracias a la beligerancia intelectual de varios conservadores como Milton Friedman y William F. Buckley, y a la de ciertas instituciones de investigación como la Heritage Foundation.
Creo que todas las personas son iguales y están dotados por su Creador con
irrevocable derechos: tales como el progreso individual y el respecto a todas sus libertades. Dichos derechos no pueden ser fiscalizada o controlada por ninguna instancia del gobierno, nuestro principal objetivo es fomentar gobiernos que respeten las libertades de sus ciudadanos, los gobiernos debe de ser lo mas reducido posible y sin poderes sobre los derechos de sus ciudadanos.
Todos los ciudadanos deben tener las mismas oportunidades de progresó económico y nadie debería ser penalizado con impuestos por su progresó. El cual debería ser estimulado y no penalizado, recordando siempre, que el progresó siempre esta ligado a la responsabilidad personal. Respetando el siempre creciente instinto de progresar en la búsqueda de felicidad.
- La función del gobierno es mantener la seguridad y la defensa de la nación.
- La función del gobierno es de mediador justo, no como participe.
- La función de gobierno es fomentar la laboriosidad y la integración de todos los ciudadanos al desarrollo de la nación. Nunca en beneficios de unos, en prejuicios de otros. Nosotros respetamos la vida desde la concepción hasta la muerte natural; no apoyamos el aborto, ni ninguna practica que valla en contra de la concepción o la vida del infante.
Nosotros exhortamos por los valores familiares como base de nuestra sociedad, definiendo el matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer.
¿Porque el libre mercado es el único que puede proveer el progreso individual?.
En la segunda mitad del siglo XVIII, al calor de la Revolución industrial inglesa, Adam Smith desempeñó un papel muy importante en la popularización de las teorías económicas del laissez-faire, siendo considerado el padre de las teorías de libre mercado o librecambismo. La idea principal de estas teorías era la no injerencia de los estados en asuntos económicos. Según Adam Smith, había una mano invisible que guiaba a la economía capitalista por la cual la suma de los egoísmos responsables repercutiría en beneficio de toda la sociedad y el desarrollo de la economía. Las regulaciones sociales, desde este punto de vista, resultaban poco deseables.
En la Francia del siglo XVIII la expresión laissez faire era la fórmula mediante la cual los revolucionarios comprimían su programa. Su objetivo era el establecimiento de una economía de mercado sin obstáculos. Con el fin de alcanzar dicho fin abogaban por la abolición de todas las leyes que prevenían que gente más eficiente superara a competidores menos preparados.
Hoy día se utiliza como sinónimo de economía de liberalismo económico o neoliberalismo sin embargo, la teoría laissez-faire supondría reducir drásticamente la influencia de los gobiernos empezando por abstenerse de participar en la economía. Esto también supone una masiva reducción del tamaño de los programas sociales y el predominio de la ley de la oferta y la demanda en todos los ámbitos de la vida.

Bajos teorías económicas del laissez-faire la economía de Estados Unido alcanzo su máximo desarrollo en el 1827
En el sur se multiplicaron las fábricas de textiles, y en Chicago y sus alrededores surgieron empacadoras de carne. La industria eléctrica se creó gracias a una serie de inventos: el teléfono, el fonógrafo, el bombillo, las películas animadas, el motor y el trasformador de corriente alterna. En Chicago, el arquitecto Louis Sullivan introdujo la construcción a base de estructuras de acero para dar forma a las ciudades del mundo con una contribución característicamente estadounidense: el rascacielos.
Los estadounidenses del siglo XIX señalaban con orgullo estos logros, y no les faltaba razón. Estados Unidos siempre ha sido hospitalario con los inventores, los experimentadores y los empresarios. La libertad para crear empresas nuevas se debe, en gran medida, a la vitalidad de la economía estadounidense. Pero el crecimiento económico irrestricto creó muchos y muy graves problemas. Algunos negocios crecieron demasiado y se volvieron extremadamente poderosos. La United States Steel Corporation, creada en 1901, era la mayor sociedad mercantil del mundo y producía el 60% del acero de la nación. Para limitar la competencia, los ferrocarriles convinieron en fusionarse y uniformar sus tarifas de embarque. Los "consorcios" (enormes combinaciones de sociedades mercantiles) trataron de establecer un control monopólico sobre algunas industrias, especialmente el petróleo.
Estas empresas gigantes podían producir bienes eficientemente y venderlos a precios bajos, pero también podían fijar dichos precios y destruir a los competidores pequeños. Los agricultores en especial se quejaban de que los ferrocarriles cobraban tarifas altas por transportar sus productos. Entonces como ahora, casi todos los estadounidenses admiraban el éxito en los negocios y creían en la libre empresa; pero también pensaban que el poder de las sociedades monopó1icas debía limitarse para proteger los derechos del individuo.
Una respuesta a este problema era la regulación gubemamental. La Comisión para el Comercio Interestatal se creó en 1887 para controlar las tarifas ferrocarrileras. En 1890, la Ley Antimonopólica Sherman proscribió los consorcios, las fusiones y los acuerdos de negocios''que limitaran el comercio". Inicialmente, ninguna de estas medidas fue muy efectiva, pero establecieron el principio de que el gobierno federal podía regular la industria para bien de todos.
Antes de 1900, el dogma económico vigente había sido el laissez-faire: la menor intervención posible del gobierno en la empresa privada.