There's been a bit of a hue-and-cry in the media over the recent announcements by AT&T and Caterpillar, among others, that they will be taking significant financial hits thanks to Obamacare.
In fact, it's not just limited to the media; Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA,) perpetual ne'er-do-well and foe of anything sane or intelligent, has decided to subpoena the CEOs of the four corporations which issued the biggest loss statements, those being AT&T, 3M, Caterpillar, and AK Steel Holding Corp.
Why?
Well, he wants them to come to a Congressional "hearing" at which apparently his purpose is to yell at them for making Obamacare look bad.
I know you wonder why I'd say that's his motive, right?
It might have something to do with the fact that he said
"The new bill is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern. They also appear to conflict with independent analyses."
What Representative Waxman isn't telling you - in the process of writing this letter (warning: annoying, slow .pdf) in which he asks that AT&T send every document for the last year that was seen by any executive in the company above the rank of Vice President that relates to health care to Congress - is that AT&T is required by the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to report these kinds of earnings adjustments immediately, or face punitive actions and fraud charges by the SEC.
So let me break this down into several salient points.
First, what this is, is naked political harassment of businesses that even admit that there MIGHT be adverse consequences for Congress' actions. There's no reason Congress should - or should even have the power to - call executives at private companies onto the carpet to "answer" for anything; much less, to do so because those executives obeyed a law that same Congress passed and which Representative Waxman was a signatory for.
Let me reiterate that; Representative Waxman himself voted yes on the law which required these companies to make these announcements, and is now furious that they have complied with it.
Secondly, Representative Waxman is upset because these statements of future losses don't agree with his figures on what the Obamacare bill is supposed to do; he thinks it's supposed to save money, so it's supposed to save money, period, regardless of what it actually does.
Thirdly, Representative Waxman seems unaware that the real danger here is not that these statements do not agree with Obamacare's projections, but that they portend a much worse outcome: namely, that companies unable to afford these losses will simply ditch their health plans entirely and leave their employees dependent on - who else? - the federal government to provide them with health insurance.
How, sir, I ask you, do you intend to save money, when everyone will be on the government plan, hmmm? Given that the government has incurred massive cost overruns in even such simple things as the Postal Service, how precisely do you intend to SAVE money by making everyone use it?
The answer is simple: you can't. And now you're mad that that fact is getting out; you're scared, because it's becoming evident that the citizenry is getting seriously angry with the obvious differences between the treatment of government workers versus private sector ones; you're scared because the public is on to the fact that you're screwing them - 66% of Americans think this will make things worse - and you fear their response in November; and most of all, you're scared because the Tea Party has prettier women than your protests do.
OK, that last isn't really relevant, but it's still true.
Well, it might be relevant: think about this, if you will. Where the beautiful women go, that's the height of fashion at the moment; they're the trendmakers, for all anyone can try to deny it. (How else do you explain those retarded-looking Ugg boots?) And right now, all the gorgeous women are at the Tea Party protests...
...And the pro-Marxist rallies have wrinkled, dyspeptic-looking hippies who are still lost in the Sixties.
...Like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer...
Anyway, I will close with one more salient point of actual relevance, number four, if anyone's keeping score.
The actual health insurance companies noticed the other day that the actual Obamacare bill, as passed, requires them to extend coverage for kids with pre-existing conditions on policies they issue - but doesn't actually require them to issue policies.
The official response of Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services? Well, she immediately reassured Congress that if there was any "ambiguity" in the Obamacare bill, she would be able to take care of it with regulations.
In other words, they passed a law, it doesn't do what they claimed, so they're going to say "screw the law" and just pass rules until you have to do it their way.
Sweet! Can I do this? I am passing a rule, right now - I'm sorry, a "non-statutory regulation" saying that Congress is now hereby required to rebate to me 100% of any penalties levied against me for choosing not to buy their overpriced, under-doctored claptrap, so that I have plenty of funds to do so again.
I'd guess all this hoopla is why they were trying to distract us with noisy stories of death threats that turned out to be false, huh?
