Rep. Sears, Obamacare and Ohio's Health Care Freedom Act

Over the past 24 hours, many of us in this area (and around the country, for that matter) have been informed about actions and comments made by Rep. Barbara Sears in a House committee during the discussion of the Health Care Freedom Act, the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) and the proposal to accept the Medicaid expansion in Ohio.

The FreedomWorks article, cross-posted on RedState.com, says:

In early March, Ohio State Representative Ron Young and Rep. Andy Thompson introduced a bill known as, “The Health Care Freedom Act,” (HCFA) that proposed a new line of defense against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or, Obamacare. The bill, when passed, will prohibit health insurance companies in Ohio from accepting any federal funding that would trigger penalties for employers or individuals who aren’t compliant with Obamacare. Wednesday, when the bill was brought up in committee, opposition arose; but not only from the expected side of the aisle. While the Democrats did balk at the bill, Republican Majority Floor Leader Barbara Sears also took issue with HCFA. One needn’t look too deep to understand why Sears wouldn’t want the HCFA to pass in Ohio. Not only has she received a substantial amount of financial contributions from the health care industry, she currently works at a health insurance provider and recently passed her own bill which helps implement Obamacare.

Rep. Sears is not quoted in the article, nor does it say if they tried to contact her to get a comment or response.

I've known Barbara for a long time - we've worked on each other's campaigns and supported each other over the years. So I emailed her and asked for her response. Here is her reply:

Thank you - I can respond however I'm in Columbus with a full calendar of budget meetings today and tomorrow.

It would be helpful if they would read or call...Thank you for your reach out.

Barbara

When she does respond, I will post it here.

Forget logic, you're supposed to love Obamacare

Yesterday, Ohio Democratic State Rep. Teresa Fedor held a press conference to criticize Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's announcement that he would repeal Obamacare if he were elected. She strategically held the conference on the first day of U.S. Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of the law.

Of course, no Democratic press conference is complete with an appeal to emotion, so she trotted out the typical tug-at-the-heart-strings examples of what would happen if that evil Romney had his way.

The first was Jack Viren, 67, who said:

"The fact that Mitt Romney would overturn the [Affordable Care Act], which allows my wife to have health insurance, saving us close to $15,000 a year, it's unconscionable and unthinkable. We were just totally grateful to President Obama and the Congress when the Affordable Care Act was passed," Mr. Viren said.

But this isn't true. Earlier in the linked article, Viren admits that his wife had insurance:

Mr. Viren said his wife, Carol, who is 12 years younger than he, was forced by an illness to give up her practice as a lawyer and started running an online business. He said the cost of her coverage, which she obtained through a group, went from $800 a month in 2007 to $1,200 the next year. The couple said the cost would have gone to $1,600 with a $2,500 deductible in 2009, but Mrs. Viren dropped the coverage because they couldn't afford it while also paying about $1,000 a month for prescriptions.

"If she had had to go into the hospital for any period of time it could have forced us into bankruptcy," Mr. Viren said.

So what he's saying is that the costs of being without insurance were going to be less than being with insurance?!?

He then contradicts himself when saying that they chose to risk bankruptcy rather than pay for insurance.

That's liberal logic for you.

They probably supported the Ohio law that allows unmarried 'children' up to the age of 28 to stay on their parents' insurance. The minute Ohio passed this law, our own insurance jumped $1,200 per year!

The problem is that Obamacare doesn't "allow" his wife to have health insurance. She had "access" to health care and willingly chose to reject it.

Instead, they decided to live off others who are paying for Ohio's high risk insurance pool, which subsidizes a limited number of individuals with tax dollars from the rest of us.

So much for personal responsibility.

You may be wondering - what is the Ohio High Risk Pool?

The Ohio High Risk Pool is designed to give uninsured Ohioans with pre-existing conditions access to quality health insurance.

Viren's wife had insurance so the pre-existing condition issue wasn't applicable.

What Viren should have said was that he and his wife made a conscious decision to stop paying for the health insurance they had and now they're glad they can get the rest of us to subsidize the insurance they're currently getting.

We're supposed to feel sorry for this guy?

And we're supposed to want to support an unconstitutional Obamacare as a result?!?

Of course we are.

But that's not all. We're also supposed to hate the millionaires and billionaires who aren't paying their "fair share" - at least according to Sen. Fedor:

"...if more people have to pay more money, especially the millionaires and billionaires, that's part of what is necessary to have a quality nation, and it's part of their fair share of ensuring we have a viable economic future," Ms. Fedor said.

What's fair about 'rich' people paying more while nearly half the nation pays nothing at all? Talk about unfair.

But again, that's liberal logic for you.

Then we have Fran Dymarkowski, 69, who clearly doesn't think things through. Her 'tug-at-the-heart-strings' story was about Medicare:

Mrs. Dymarkowski said her husband, Paul, had a drug-resistant staph infection and that their spending on prescription drugs reached the so-called doughnut hole, a situation in which Medicare stops paying for the coverage.

She said her and her husband's cost was about $3,000 or $4,000 over a two-year period in 2009 and 2010. She said Mr. Dymarkowski's health improved and he has less need of the costly prescriptions.

"For seniors like Paul and me living on limited income through Social Security these costs were not a joke," Ms. Dymarkowski said. "Because of the Affordable Care Act, no senior will ever have to go through what Paul and I spent that year doing." The Affordable Care Act provided a rebate of $250 in the first year and will continue providing the rebate until the doughnut hole is closed in 2020.

Let's put that into perspective: taking the higher estimated (since Dymarkoski clearly didn't know exactly) amount of $4,000 over a two-year period of time, that works out to $200/month. That's not an insignificant amount when you're relying upon Social Security for your income, but it's not more or less than what others have to pay.

As I previously stated, when Ohio passed the insure-children-to-age-28 law, our insurance went up $100/month. When my husband turned 45, it went up another $100/month, strictly due to actuarial tables having nothing whatsoever to with his excellent state of health. That's $200/month in a two-year period of time - just like Dymarkowkis.

Our income is as 'fixed' as theirs - but we're paying for her rebate with our taxes, and she thinks that's okay.

"Because of the Affordable Care Act, no senior will ever have to go through what Paul and I spent that year doing."

Really? Does actually think that a $250 per year rebate will help people who see a $200 per month increase in their prescription costs? Granted, it's better than nothing, but not much - and it comes at the cost of sacrificing our Constitution.

Did she actually think about the math before she got up in front of the media?

Apparently not.

Again - we're supposed to feel sorry for her and her husband, ignoring such facts and figures, and embrace Obamacare as a result.

Dymarkowski is happy that Obamacare closed the Medicare doughnut hole, but what about the fact that Obamacare is partially funded by a $500 billion cut in Medicare?!? How does she feel about that?

The Romney campaign responded:

"President Obama is the only president to have slashed $500 billion from Medicare, and he did it to fund Obamacare. Unlike the President, Governor Romney is committed to preserving Medicare for those at or near retirement, and unlike the President he has put forward a plan that will strengthen it for future generations," said Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams.

Lest you think this is just political rhetoric, the Washington Post Fact Checker agrees:

In the health care bill, the anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans. In reality, the money is all fungible, but Romney is on relatively solid ground when he says “Obamacare takes $500 billion out of Medicare and funds Obamacare.”

Does Dymarkowski think that settling for a doughnut hole rebate is sufficient payback for the $500 billion Medicare cut that it cost? Does she even know about the cuts that are helping to pay for her $250 rebate?

No one asked her.

I'm sick of being told by elitist politicians what I must do and how I must "feel." They can tug at the heart strings all they want, but I will not stand by while my liberty, my rights, and my personal property are sacrificed so they can appear to help 'stuck-on-stupid' individuals who can't do their own math or who want to live off others.

And I will NOT forget logic and just love Obamacare.

Kaptur needs to learn math

Recently Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH9) appeared on CNBC's "Squawk Box" and proved her ignorance of both the economy and the problems facing Medicare. She stated her position that all we need to do to solve the huge budget Medicare budget is 'grow the economy.'

Even when David Walker, a former Social Security and Medicare trustee, said that wasn't possible, she insisted. Walker said (emphasis my own):

There’s a simple four-letter word Washington needs to understand–it’s called math. The math doesn’t work. We need more revenues but we’re going to have to renegotiate the social insurance contract and health care is a much bigger problem than social security but it has to get renegotiated, too.

But Kaptur, despite being shown to be wrong, stuck to her mantra:

...if we can lift people’s economic lives, where they’re working again and paying into those funds, believe me, you’ll see growth and you’ll see security in those funds.

She even says that Obamacare, which will add thousands to the Medicare rolls, will help contain costs. How embarrassing: she expects the costs to go down when thousands are added as recipients. Walker is right that she needs to understand math.

I don't know what's scarier: that she said it; that she obviously believes it; or that she gets elected spouting such illogical and contrary positions.

Here is the video with the transcript below:

KAPTUR: The most important step we can take to assure all of our social insurance programs and earned benefit programs are solvent in perpetuity is to get people back to work. Our focus has to be on economic growth and investment in this country. President Obama has laid out a road map for that. I’m anxious to walk down that road, because here in Ohio, northern Ohio, from Cleveland through Lorraine to Toledo, we see the results of the automotive industry recovering. It is magnificent. Let me tell you, it’s lifting revenues in all accounts, in order to help us fund our school systems.

ANCHOR: Congresswoman, hold on a sec. David Walker, is she correct? Could we grow enough so Medicare would become solvent? At what rate would the United States have to grow?

WALKER: As a former trustee of Social Security and Medicare and knowing something about the government’s finances, I can tell you there’s no way that will work. You would have to grow the economy by double-digit real GDP growth, achieve full employment for decades and that still–that’s not going to happen. That’s just not going to happen. There’s a simple four-letter word Washington needs to understand–it’s called math. The math doesn’t work. We need more revenues but we’re going to have to renegotiate the social insurance contract and health care is a much bigger problem than social security but it has to get renegotiated, too.

ANCHOR: Ma’am, is your party ready to renegotiate the social welfare contract?

KAPTUR: I think what President Obama did with the affordable health care plan was to put us on a track for prevention and to save some of the costs that are burdening us as an economy on the health care side. Those changes are going to lock in. In terms of Social Security, which is an earned benefit, as well as Medicare, if we can lift people’s economic lives, where they’re working again and paying into those funds, believe me, you’ll see growth and you’ll see security in those funds. But when you have so many people sitting on the sidelines, we’ve got to have programs to put people back to work, building bridges, here in Ohio–having idle people doesn’t help the economy grow. We have to keep our shoulder to the wheel, and invest and create jobs in this country.

SORKIN: We need to get the economy back in order, there’s no question. Having said that, as David just said, the math doesn’t work. Ultimately, you have to somehow fix the safety net, and what it means probably is making the safety net a little less safe.

KAPTUR: I’ll tell you if we didn’t have the trade deficits that are wiping out most of our GDP growth we would have more job creation in this country, so I respectfully disagree with the gentleman.

ANCHOR: You believe that with job creation…we could pay for Medicare?

KAPTUR: I do.

ANCHOR: Glad we have have you on the record on that.

WALKER: Based on realistic assumptions, Medicare is underfunded $37 trillion and Social Security is underfunded $9.2 trillion, and those numbers go up 2 trillion to 3 trillion a year on autopilot because of the power of compounding. That’s where we’re at and Congress better start doing its job, because Greece is not far off.

KAPTUR: We need investment in this country, sir, if so many jobs hadn’t been outsourced more people would be working and, if we could open more of the closed markets of the world, we could sell more of our goods to China and Japan. Why does a Cherokee cost $85,000 in China? If we could manufacture…

SORKIN: Ma’am, I apologize, the issue, it’s not an either/or.

ANCHOR: Andrew lost his mike so we’re having a ‘squawkward’ moment here.

SORKIN: That is the longest mike. Sorry, the point is it’s not an either/or proposition, it’s a combination and that ultimately is where we’re going, congresswoman, with this question. Everything you said you could agree or disagree with, depending on where you are politically, but we need to grow the economy, but the other issue is dealing with these entitlements. It sounds like you’re not prepared to deal with them.

KAPTUR: My primary focus is putting people back to work, because I understand the drag that this level of unemployment puts on this economic growth, and from what I’m hearing you say you don’t have much of an interest to reemploy the Americans sitting on the sidelines and want to work.

ANCHOR: No, that’s completely false. The spirit of our question was whether or not you are interested in talking about entitlement reform in a way that would ultimately help the budget in the long-term. There’s nothing in any of the requests we suggested here that we don’t want people to get back to work.

KAPTUR: I’m glad to hear that.

WALKER: Actually, I do believe we need more investment but if we don’t start dealing with structural deficits we have bigger economic, much bigger unemployment, much bigger underemployment problems in the future.

How long do Americans work for each type of tax?

From the National Center for Policy Analysis:

In 2011, Americans will devote 2 hours and 13 minutes of every eight-hour workday, or over a quarter of their working hours (27.7 percent), to paying taxes. In a nine-to-five workday, it takes until 11:13 a.m. to earn enough to pay that day's share of taxes at the federal, state and local level. If we add the federal deficit to the picture -- that is, if the federal government were planning to collect enough in taxes during 2011 to finance all of its spending -- Americans would work until lunchtime, 12:07 p.m., for the government, before keeping any of their earnings for themselves, says the Tax Foundation.

These calendar- and clock-based illustrations are a useful way to explain how much the nation as a whole spends on government:

* Individual income taxes require the most work; all but seven states, and some localities, levy an income tax. When these are added to the federal income tax burden, income taxes are projected to amount to an average of 46 minutes of work in an eight-hour workday.

* Social insurance taxes (taxes dedicated to funding social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare) require 29 minutes of work.

* Sales and excise taxes require 20 minutes of work.

* Property taxes require 16 minutes of work.

* Corporate income taxes require 16 minutes of work.

Source: Kail Padgitt and Alicia Hansen, "Nation Works until 11:13 a.m. to Pay All Taxes, Lunchtime to Pay off the Deficit," Tax Foundation, May 5, 2011.

For text:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff268.pdf

If health care bill just like Social Security and Medicare, how long until bankruptcy?

In looking at the news coverage of Saturday's vote on the Pelosi health care bill, nearly all reports include this statement:

"A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later."

And I just have to shake my head and wonder what happened to the brains these people were born with.

Why in the world would anyone liken this bill to two failing and bankrupt programs?

Do they not care that both Social Security and Medicare are insolvent and are paying out more than they're taking in? Do they not care that people who are paying into the system now are probably never going to see any benefit from those taxes they've paid?

Do they not understand that these two programs are just ponzi schemes that would put them into prison if they were in the private sector? As the Wall Street Journal reports:

The House also contains a new government long-term insurance program that starts collecting premiums in 2011 but doesn't starting paying benefits until 2016 and then runs out of money in 2029. North Dakota Democrat (Senator) Kent Conrad called it "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of" in an interview with the Washington Post in late October.(emphasis added)

Maybe they understand all this - and are doing it BECAUSE of these facts. After all, we've continued to let them. And the more people they put onto the programs, the more support they have for extending them.

Under these rules and outcomes, they expect the same thing with health care. They'll make Americans dependent upon the government for health decisions and can then make all the decisions for the American people. We let them do this with our retirement, so why not health?

And when we are dependent upon government - that is, the politicians - we'll vote for the ones who promise to give us more, even if there is no way to pay for it.

Eventually, there won't be anyone left to tax to pay for the 'free' services others are getting. Then what? Will the politicians just borrow the money from China? And what if China stops buying debt?

Ah, those pesky 'what if' questions that politicians avoid like the plague.

If this health care bill is just like Social Security and Medicare, you can be sure it is not sustainable, will result in higher taxes, have limited service and, eventually, will result in bankruptcy for the program.

Pelosi said so herself.


Side Note: The Wall Street Journal has a great take on this as well.

Did you know? Government already coerces your health care choice

I guess I wasn't aware of this fact until reading this article in the Wall Street Journal:

"A centerpiece of the debate over ObamaCare is government coercion and the right to choose a health-care plan. So it's worth watching a lawsuit now making its way through the federal courts that seeks to let seniors keep their Social Security benefits even if they reject Medicare. This could be a big deal."

That's right. If you want to collect your Social Security, you MUST enroll in Medicare, even if you don't want it or need it. If you've got a great health plan already and decide to 'opt out' of Medicare, the government will deny you the ability to collect your Social Security.

Seems contrary to everything we know and the rhetoric we're hearing in today's health coverage debates, doesn't it? Especially since the two are completely different programs, each funded by the individual through different taxes.

But there is some logic and reason making its way through this situation:

POMS were imposed in 1993 during the Clinton Administration and set forth rules that aren't in the statute or regulations governing Medicare. The three plaintiffs—Brian Hall, John Kraus and former U.S. House Majority Leader Richard Armey—all had health-care plans they preferred to the coverage they were compelled to receive through Medicare.

In her ruling this week, the judge said that "neither the statute nor the regulation specifies that Plaintiffs must withdraw from Social Security and repay retirement benefits in order to withdraw from Medicare." Article I of the Constitution gives Congress sole power to legislate—so when agency rules conflict with federal statute, the statute takes precedence.

The Obama administration opposed the suit saying that the plaintiffs had not yet exhausted their administrative remedies for challenging these agency rules. But the judge disagreed:

Judge Collyer rejected that notion, noting that one plaintiff had sought an administrative hearing but "received no response from the SSA for approximately three years." Exhaustion of remedies was therefore "futile." A three-year wait is precisely the kind of bureaucratic hassle, or deliberate stonewalling, that government is famous for.

The article continues with what appears to be just common sense - but also points out the contradiction when it comes to the actions in this situation versus the words coming out of politicians' mouths:

Keep in mind that the plaintiffs are merely asking for the freedom to spend their own money for their own health insurance. With Medicare careening toward bankruptcy, letting seniors opt out could help save the taxpayers money. The plaintiffs argue, and reasonably so, that they have paid a lifetime of taxes into Social Security and shouldn't have those benefits denied merely because they are willing to pay for their own medical care. Social Security and Medicare are separate programs, and both are financed by separate payroll contributions.

The response of the Obama Administration to this lawsuit is revealing about its principles, as opposed to its rhetoric. President Obama says his plan for a "public option" wouldn't be coercive, saying that "If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health-care plan." But here is a case where federal bureaucrats are using their power to force Medicare on seniors. Let's hope the courts restore a genuine right to choose.

We need to keep this situation in mind and remember the excesses of government when it comes to a so-called 'choice' of health coverage in the future. Despite their words, we have a present-day example that demonstrates the words cannot be trusted.

Things I'd blog about if I had all day

* There's an interesting analysis of the Van Jones resignation and what it says about President Barack Obama and his administration in the Washington Examiner. While I was driving yesterday, I heard Rush Limbaugh's take on this as well.

Both author Michael Barone and Limbaugh questioned how someone like 'green jobs' czar Van Jones, a self-avowed 'truther' could end up in the Obama administration, especially given his other beliefs and associations. Could it be that the Obama administration didn't know? Or is it that they knew, and approved?

Either way, it spells long-term trouble for the president. If he didn't know about Van Jones, what else doesn't he know about the other czars in his administration who are in charge of multiple initiatives and public funds? If he did know and brought him in anyway, is it an indication of Obama's belief in and/or support for such theories or philosophies?

Perhaps only time will tell.

* This same article also had an interesting opinion on 'green jobs' which I fully share:

"If there were money to be made in green jobs, private investors would be creating them already. In fact big corporations like General Electric are scrambling to position themselves as green companies, gaming legislation and regulations so they can make profits by doing so. Big business is ready to create green jobs -- if government subsidizes them. But the idea that green jobs will replace all the lost carbon-emitting jobs is magical thinking."

I only hope our local mayoral candidates will remember this fact about the free market.

* Michael Moore's new movie premiered this week and basically says that capitalism is evil. Here's my question for all candidates, especially those who say they are Democrats (as that party has embraced this filmmaker and his films): Do you agree with Michael Moore that capitalism is evil?

The answer to that question will tell more about the candidate than any policy or position paper or press conference.

I'd also like to know what the everyday Democrat thinks of this opinion? Is this really what my neighbors, who are registered as Democrats, think of our economic system?

Or is that some people are evil and do bad things - and that even good people will make bad (evil) decisions?

* There's been a lot of discussion about the conservative opposition to the health care bill and government-run health care versus Medicare and Veteran's Services health programs.

Here's the thing: I oppose the concept of Medicare and of the government forcing our Veterans to use a government-run program for their health care needs. I can find no authorization in the Constitution (except the 'general welfare' clause which our founders specifically said should not be used as a catch-all for anything government wants to do) for such programs.

However, individuals have participated in and paid into the Medicare program and expect a return for that investment and promise. So it wouldn't be 'fair' or 'right' to suddenly eliminate a program people are participating in, or expect to provide for them in the future.

There is another way, though, that those on the left fail to consider. Instead of continuing to collect the money from today's payers in order to fund yesterday's enrollees (which is causing the bankrupting of the system as it goes broke), modify it so that the individuals get the funds back and make the decisions about how to spend those funds on their own. That way, they get more purchasing power for their money since the government isn't taking its share (for government salaries, program administration, etc...) right off the top.

What would happen if we suddenly returned to the individuals their portion of what they'd paid in and then said, 'we trust you to make good decisions that are in your best interests without us telling you what to do?' Or would there be too many who truly believe that people cannot make good decisions which is why the government must do it for them?

Again, the answer to that question tells us everything we need to know about the person giving the answer.

* I heard a sound clip on one of the talk shows yesterday about a businesswoman in California at one of the health care town hall meetings - it should be heard by everyone, especially the elected officials.

What go her so upset to begin with was that she had taken the time to call and write her representative. But she said that when she did so, she got a form letter response saying 'thank you for your support', which obviously indicated no one had really read what she'd written; or she was condescendingly told by staffers that the representative really knew better than she did.

Her point was that as a business owner, there were two things Congress could do immediately to help 'solve' the claimed health care 'crisis': 1) tort reform and 2) open up the market between states. She then said something startling: there are 1,300 insurance companies in the nation but only six that are available in California for her to choose from.

Can you imagine? Over 1,300 companies that could be offering plans and competing for our business, but only six that Californians can select? I have no idea how many there are in Ohio, but could it be a similar amount?

Opening up inter-state competition wouldn't cost a thing. And it could be done by Congress pretty much immediately. Why not try it and see if providing such immediate 'choice and competition' would have any effect before setting up huge bureaucracies to 'provide choice and competition'????

The only reason why that would be opposed would be in lawmakers thought they'd somehow lose either control, power or campaign funds in doing so.

It's an instant way to provide exactly what they say they want to provide without costing taxpayers a single penny. Why wouldn't they do so if 'choice and competition' were truly the goal?

* Hourglass 1941 blog has a second video of Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy refusing to answer questions about H.R. 3200, America's AFfordable Health Choices Act of 2009, will be paid for. Instead, she walks away. She should either admit she doesn't know or explain how the bill will be funded. Perhaps she just afraid that doing either would look worse than just walking away?

Scary reality: $107 trillion in liabilities

An editorial in the Charleston Daily Mail spells it out in stark - but factual terms: we're in trouble because (t)he nation can't pay for Social Security and the health entitlement programs it has now.

$107 trillion in liabilities
Congress needs to fix existing programs if it creates new ones

AS Americans listened to people yammer on about "death panels" and other distortions of some of the health "reform" proposals circulating in Congress, larger and more important questions have gone unasked and unanswered.

First on the list should be: Are members of Congress out of touch with reality?

The nation can't pay for Social Security and the health entitlement programs it has now.

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports for 2009, released in early May, laid out the situation plainly:

Social Security and Medicare have a combined unfunded liability of almost $107 trillion.

According to Pamela Villarreal, a senior policy analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis, that's about seven times the size of the American economy, and 10 times as much as today's national debt.

Members of Congress have, over the decades, promised Americans $107 trillion more in benefits under these two existing programs over the next 75 years than they have provided for in taxes.

Medicare alone has an unfunded liability of almost $38 trillion.

By some people's reckoning, when today's college students reach retirement in about 2054, the burden of paying Social Security and Medicare benefits would consume one in three dollars of taxable payroll.

Yet some in Congress would create a costly new medical entitlement program to deflect attention from the fact that they don't want to deal with the problems they already face.

All responsible Americans should insist on better than that.

If corporations had such unfunded obligations, we'd have members of Congress demanding appearances and accountability in front of committees and lots of cameras. But they ignore their own house while complaining about others.

And these same people want to create a new government program based on the same pyramid scheme that puts non-elected people into jail?

Can you say stuck on stupid?