Op Ed in the Washington Times on Counterterror
Spirit of America helps the cause in Afghanistan

Using Vets to push a Horrible Healthcare Bill

Jon Soltz, probably the least favorite vet in the least favorite vet organization around here, put out a statement.

Iraq War veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org Jon Soltz wrote to McConnell, "I understand that many in your caucus have concerns about the underlying bill.  Veterans have concerns too - like the concern that many of us who have seen our Veterans Affairs care expire cannot afford health insurance; like the concern that many more coming home in a tough economy may find it difficult to find a job and/or afford insurance; and like the concern that according to a report from Harvard, an estimated 2,266 veterans died last year because they had no health insurance."

No link or identification of who at Harvard issued a report on 2,200 vets dying.

I asked TSO about this.  We agreed that if you have a problem, you can go to the VA.  If you are a vet, they aren’t turning you away.  And if you are poor, you can get in as category 8, and, if you aren’t category 8, you can afford the insurance.  So until I read this report and understand how they calculated deaths of veterans who have access to free healthcare now, I think we're reasonably safe in saying that it's not true.

Soltz should be ashamed of himself for using vets to push Senator Reid's absolutely HORRID 2,000 page bill.  And Soltz should be ashamed of his own organization that pushes agendas for the left rather than taking care of vets.  And that's about the best thing I can say about him on this PG13 blog.

Soltz is a tool of the left.

Here is a link to a PDF file on the costs to average Americans and their companies. Download RPC - Status Quo

After the Jump are some statements about this piece of legislation that VoteVets is pushing. 


PRESIDENT OBAMA: “If You Like Your Current Plan, You Will Be Able To Keep It.  Let Me Repeat That:  If You Like Your Plan, You'll Be Able To Keep It.” (President Obama, Remarks At The White House, Washington, D.C., 7/21/09)

 HOWEVER

 CBO: “We Estimate That Between 9 Million And 10 Million Other People Who Would Be Covered By An Employment-Based Plan Under Current Law Would Not Have An Offer Of Such Coverage Under The Proposal.” (CBO, “Additional Information About Employment-Based Coverage,” 12/7/09)


 SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “So It Is True That Some Persons In The So-Called Nongroup Market In The Year 2016, Would Find Their Premiums Would Go Up Without Subsidies. And I Think That Figure Nets Out To About 7%, But They're Getting Better Insurance.” (Sen. Baucus, Floor Remarks, 12/7/09)

 HOWEVER

 WASHINGTON POST: “As A Result, For The 32 Million People In The Individual Market, Premiums Would Be 10 Percent To 13 Percent Higher, On Average, Than Under Current Law, climbing to $5,800 a year for individuals and $15,200 for family coverage.” (“Senate Health Bill Gets A Boost,” The Washington Post, 12/1/09)


SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): “In The Second 10 Years, It Reduces The Deficit By One-Quarter Of 1% Of G.D.P., Which Is Equal To $650 Billion.” (Sen. Conrad, Floor Remarks, 12/7/09)

 AND

“Reid’s Office Said The Bill Could Reduce The Deficit By $650 Billion In Its Second 10 Years.” (“Harry Reid's Plan Ups Pressure On Moderates,” Politico, 11/18/09)

HOWEVER

CBO: “A Detailed Year-By-Year Projection For Years Beyond 2019, Like Those That CBO Prepares For The 10-Year Budget Window, Would Not Be Meaningful Because The Uncertainties Involved Are Simply Too Great.” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Harry Reid, 11/18/09, P.14)

Not meaningful?

 

Comments