Bush’s Health Care and Energy plans being criticized, for wrong reasons

link

Lets start from the top on this article.

“President Bush brushed aside criticism of his new health care plan as “reflexive” partisanship and urged the Democratic-led Congress to work with him on the issue.”

Of course, this new Health Care plan is appeasement to prevent the liberals from passing Socialized Health Care under the misnomer Universal Health Care. So, who’s criticizing this plan and for what reasons?

“The president’s proposal, to offer tax breaks to people to encourage them to buy health insurance on their own while taxing some with employer-provide health coverage, has received a chilly reception from Democratic lawmakers, labor unions and some consumer groups.”

Well, Democratic lawmakers are liberals. Labor unions are cartels that undermine workers while pretending to be working for them and are often backed by organized crime. Some consumer groups obviously means liberal consumer groups.

“But Bush, who unveiled his plan in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, said that he has spoken to some Senate Democrats who seemed willing to open discussions.”

Well, of course there are Democrats willing to open discussions. Bush’s plan is something a liberal would propose. So what does Bush have to say on the issue?

“While some members gave a reflexive partisan response, I was encouraged that others welcomed this opportunity to reach across the aisle.”

Bush finally has something right. The Democrats who have been talking about “bipartisanship” are nothing more than hypocrites.

“Bush’s proposal would provide a new tax deduction of $15,000 per family and $7,500 for individuals who purchase private health insurance.”

All that amounts to is a further subsidy for the health insurance industry, which is absolutely unacceptable. Insurance is a waste of money. Don’t believe that one? Then, where does the money come from for the Insurance company to pay for your health care? If you never purchase health insurance, you are going to come out ahead in the long run and you won’t take unnecessary visits to the doctor.

“But families with employer-provided health plans that exceed the $15,000 cap would for the first time face a tax on some of their benefits.”

And thats a bad thing, because? How is health insurance untaxed while income, which is of far greater value, is taxed at exorbitant rates?

“The president said the plan would make health insurance more affordable to the 47 million people who lack coverage while discouraging the purchase of “gold-plated” health insurance that drives up costs throughout the system.”

Do those 47 million who don’t have Health Insurance want it? I doubt it. Bush appears to be onto something here. Health Insurance is driving up health care costs and that’s why the medical community wants to subsidize health insurance so much.

“Critics say Bush’s approach would not help enough of the uninsured and would undermine employer-provided coverage that is a mainstay of the U.S. health system.”

One of those is a valid criticism. Bush’s plan will not help any of the uninsured because insurance harms, not helps. However, I want to see it undermine employer-provided coverage. Without health insurance, medical costs would go into a downward spiral. So let’s eliminate Health Insurance in our lifetimes. We might just save lives in the process.

“Bush also used his radio address to pitch another State of the Union initiative — his call for a large increase in the use of renewable fuels over the next decade.”

Bush wants to encourage increased use of overpriced renewable fuels? Has he lost his mind or has he merely joined the Church of Environmentalism? I’m going with the former. Renewable fuels is an “solution” to the non-existant problem of climate change, better known as global warming that the Church of Environmentalism has invented.

“Bush set a goal of a five-fold increase in the use of ethanol and said his aim was that by 2017, it would displace about 15 percent of gasoline made from crude oil.”

I don’t think ethanol’s ever going to be adopted, unless there is government coercion to force people to purchase it, instead of the much more affordable gasoline. Apparently, the Church knows this and is preparing to use its favorite tactic, EPA regulations.

“The president’s energy initiatives have been less controversial than the health proposal, but many Democrats have urged stronger action, such as mandatory caps on carbon emissions, to address climate change.”

So, the Dems think he isn’t going far enough? Climate Change does not need to be addressed, because it does not exist. Mandatory caps on carbon emissions would just make cars more expensive. Next time the gas prices increase, make sure you lynch mob the Church of Environmentalism instead of innocent Exxon Mobil.