I’ve heard some folks say that they’d happily pay their part to get health insurance for everyone.  The only problem is, they think that it’s just a matter of money; a few (or a whole bunch of) extra bucks out of their paychecks.  But there’s more to it than that.  Republicans have come out with some numbers that show this is a bit more costly than that.  A sampling:

5.5 million — Number of jobs that could be lost as a result of taxes on businesses that cannot afford to provide health insurance coverage, according to a model developed by Council of Economic Advisors Chair Christina Romer

$1.055 trillion — New federal spending on expanded health insurance coverage over the next ten years, according to a Congressional Budget Office preliminary score of the bill

0.7% — Percentage of all that new spending occurring in the bill’s first three years-representing a debt and tax “time bomb” in the program’s later years set to explode on future generations

$88,200 — Definition of “low-income” family of four for purposes of health insurance subsidies

114 million — Number of individuals who could lose their current coverage under the bill’s government-run health plan, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group

And what about paying for all of this with Medicare fraud reduction?

$60 billion — Loss sustained by taxpayers every year due to Medicare fraud, according to a recent 60 Minutes expose; the government-run health plan does not reform the ineffective anti-fraud statutes and procedures that have kept Medicare on the Government Accountability Office’s list of high-risk programs for two decades

Zero — Prohibitions on government programs like Medicare and Medicaid from using cost-effectiveness research to impose delays to or denials for access to life-saving treatments.

That silly talk about "death panels"?

$634 Billion — Amount that could be saved by denying individuals access to treatments that are not “cost-effective,” according to a report by the liberal Commonwealth Fund; Section 1160 of the bill gives bureaucrats in the Obama Administration virtual free rein to develop a new “high-value” reimbursement system for Medicare by May 2012

Your money would be buying more government intrusion, less freedom, subsidies for those "poor" making $80,000 a year, expansion of unemployment, and a price tag that, while it may feel good at the beginning, will hit up-and-coming wage earners the hardest. 

Happily pay for this?  Really?

We’re spending trillions on both a stimulus that isn’t stimulating and a (so far, potential) co-opting of the health insurance industry.  And President Obama has the gall to say this:

President Barack Obama gave his sternest warning yet about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits, saying on Wednesday that if government debt were to pile up too much, it could lead to a double-dip recession.

To whom was he giving this "sternest warning"?  His own party, with his own approval, has been doing this! 

"It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession," he said.

"If I don’t stop doing this, I’m grounded!  I’m serious!"

So spending hasn’t fixed anything, and it looks like maybe, just maybe, the fella’ may yet have some sense in him.

His administration was considering ways to accelerate economic growth, with tax measures among the options to give companies incentives to hire, Obama said in the interview with Fox conducted in Beijing during his nine-day trip to Asia.

Tax cuts spurring employment?  Who would have thought?  Well, conservatives have always thought that, but besides them?

Shire Network News #174 has been released. The feature interview is with New Zealand journalist and author Ian Wishart, who explains why New Zealand is, if you can believe such a thing, even more PC, multi-culti and obsessed with apocalyptic global warming than Canada. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to "Consider This!"

I’m in Cleveland, Ohio on business today as I record this.  (Please leave your condolences on the web site or our Facebook page.)  I watch a bit of TV in the hotel room while I’m here, mostly news channels.  And being away from the hustle and bustle of the household scheduling give me time to see a lot of news.

One thing I’ve noticed this week is that there’s so much nuttiness in the world today.  An Army officer going on a shooting rampage against his own soldiers.  Swine flu running rampant.  People unable to identify who Joe Biden is.  It’s just bonkers.  And I think those who are running their countries may just be leading the way.

And you know, we don’t hear the word "bonkers" enough. 

So, from the home office in Camillus, NY, here are the Top 9 Signs Your National Leader Is Positively Bonkers

9 – Gets the important shout-outs to his peeps before getting to the more mundane issues of a mass-murdering, al-Qaeda-loving, Muslim army officer.

8 – He wants to ship nuclear material to Venezuela.

7 – He doesn’t realize that the Venezuelan socialist utopia has shortages of food and water, not nuclear material.

6 – He’s currently running Venezuela.

5 – Spends a month on the golf course pondering whether to send 30,000 more troops to the war, or maybe 35,000 instead.  Or perhaps 35,762.  Decisions, decisions.  Fore!

4 – Thinks that if only he could chase out the corporations and citizens who have been bankrolling his socialist utopia, then he’d have his socialist utopia.

3 – Attacks a country called Georgia in order to score some chicken barbeque and pork ribs.

2 – Thinks that wiping a country off the map is a sober, considered foreign policy.

And the number one sign your national leader is positively bonkers:

He thinks that, when spending money doesn’t create jobs, the solution is to spend more money.

Yes, nuttiness can be a trickle-down phenomenon.  Consider this.

Remember "Paul Harvey News and Comment" on the radio?  (Or am I showing my age?)  At least that guy had the guts to let you know that he had commentary in his show, unlike some journalists these days that sneak it in.  Well, no hiding it here.  This is "Doug Payton Links and Comment".

Becky Garrison, writing at the liberal "God’s Politics Blog", on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, says that "more walls need to fall".  Fair enough, and I’d tend to agree with that.  But sometimes walls are necessary, and are the least intrusive method of dealing with an actual problem.  They can protect more so than divide.  One of the walls that Ms. Garrison says needs to come down is the Israeli wall on the West Bank.  Meryl Yourish, however, compares these two types of walls — Berlin vs. Israeli — and notes major differences in the motivation and the result of each.  The Christian Left perhaps needs to understand a little nuance here.

Dale Franks, writing at Q&O, notes that the supposed upside of the government takeover of Chrysler, and subsequent sale of a large portion to Fiat, hasn’t, and looks like it won’t, materialize.  Your government, and your money, at work flushed away.

An insufficiently colorful color guard.  Scott Johnson at Power Line point out political correctness in the smallest aspect of our lives.  (And he needs to because the media doesn’t seem to want to notice it.  Or it looks on with admiration and doesn’t consider it news.)

For all the accusations of hate directed at the Right, and the religious Right in particular, Jeff Jacoby points out that they don’t hold a candle to the irreligious Left.

President Obama doesn’t think that the prospect of jail time over choosing not buying government-mandated health insurance (and likely choosing not paying the fine) is not the "biggest question" Congress is facing now.  Yeah, no big deal.  (Riiight.)  And in an Irony Alert, candidate Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for proposing a health care system with a mandatory purchase requirement. 

The New York Times has no problem calling Jim DeMint a "conservative Republican", but decides that Bernie Sanders, a self-described "socialist", is only a "left-leaning independent".  Courage and truth from that liberal media.

(With apologies to George Lucas and Star Wars episode 4.)

The President’s numerous, and recent, trips to Virginia and New Jersey notwithstanding, Republicans were elected governors of those states.  The thrill (up the leg) is gone one year on, and when policies instead of history-making is more of a draw, two conservatives are elected.  (Christie is very pro-life, and is the first Republican governor in 16 years.  McDonnell is the first Republican for Virginia in 8 years.)  While Democrats are saying that the reasons are mostly due to local issues, the fact that they brought in the President so much for these races tends to discount their own analysis.  Bringing in a President that both these states voted for in 2008 was not enough to get the job done. 

Hope and change indeed.  Just not the kind the President represents.

In the small but closely-watched race in New York’s 23rd district, where the Republican dropped out, only to endorse the Democrat, the fact that Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman managed to garner 45% of the vote is astounding.  Coming in only 4.5 points behind Democrat Bill Owens is amazing for a 3rd party candidate.  While it’s likely that some of the absentee ballots cast early, before Dede Scozzafava essentially dropped out, may have gone to Hoffman, it probably wouldn’t have been enough to win it.  The main issue here is that, as Brit Hume on Fox News Channel put it, this is why you have primaries.  Scozzafava was chosen by the party machine.  Clearly, the base, even in New York, is farther to the right than the party realizes.  When you run a good, conservative campaign, you can both energize the base and bring in independents (ask Ronald Reagan … or John McCain).  This is a tough, if small, loss in a district that has been reliably Republican, but the party dropped the ball and misread its constituents.

Still, giving up NY-23 for New Jersey and Virginia is a trade I’d take.

Closer to (my) home, the city of Atlanta is poised to elect it’s first white mayor in 35 years.  Mary Norwood got 46% of the vote last night, which kicks in a runoff in a few weeks with 2nd place challenger Kasim Reed.  For a long time, it has been my opinion that Atlanta needed an African-American mayor to avoid spurious charges of racism.  Freaknik, an annual party generally attended by college students from historically black colleges, was heavily curtailed by 1998 and ultimately relocated to Daytona Beach under Mayor Bill Campbell.  If he had been white, he would have been labeled "racist" and that would have been an unfair distraction from the actual debate.  As it was, he was labeled an "Uncle Tom" for doing so, even though residents of all colors agreed that it was getting out of hand.  He did what had to be done, all for good reasons, but I think the racial overtones would have not allowed a mayor to do the job properly.  That Atlanta seems ready to elect a white mayor is a good sign that the race issue is diminishing, but time will tell if Norwood is elected.

One issue-related referendum I’d like to point out is that in Maine (as liberal as they come in New England) they overturned a law (that had not taken effect  yet) that would legalize same-sex marriage.  By a 53-47 margin, the people rejected what the legislature had passed.  Yes, the people elected those legislators, but apparently the peoples’ representatives stopped representing them at some point.  As I understand it, when it comes to referendums, same-sex marriage is 0 for 31.  I’m detecting a trend.

And finally, in a much smaller race, blogger Scott Ott, evangelical Christian and author of the wonderful, satirical blog ScrappleFace, lost to the incumbent for County Executive of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania by the small margin of 49-51.  The election was decided by 1,000 votes among the 40,000 case.  Scott put up a great campaign, and for a first-time political-office-seeker, this is fantastic, and shows that his conservative principles, especially with regards to fiscal policy, hit a nerve.  I hope this is not the end of Scott’s political aspirations.

Shire Network News #173 has been released. The feature interview is with Tehmina Kazi, Director of British Muslims for Secular Democracy. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News asking you to "Consider this!"

Do you remember when George W. Bush, that shredder of the Constitution he, got so upset with unflattering coverage of his policies by MSNBC that he barred them from press pool interviews, and sent his minions to declare it an invalid news organization?  Yeah, me neither.  But let me ask you; if he had, don’t you think this would have caused a constitutional crisis, at least in the minds on the Left?  Right, me too. 

But let’s back up a bit and hit some recent history.  During the Sunday talk shows on October 18th, Obama mouthpieces David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel went on the offensive against Fox News, saying they were not a news organization because they have "a perspective".  The implication being that every other news organization plays it precisely, straight down the middle.  (I’ll wait for you to finish laughing before I continue.)

Later in the week, Jake Tapper of ABC News, was apparently the only reporter remotely concerned that this was, y’know, rather chilling.  He asked the President’s spokesman why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide what is or isn’t a news organization.  The answer came back from the spokesman, "You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon."  So, what news programs are on Fox News Channel during those times?  Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. 

OK, someone needs to explain to Barack Obama, President of the United States, the difference between "news" and "opinion".  So we here at Shire Network News … er, well perhaps we should call it "Shire Network Opinion" just to make things perfectly clear.  The distinction is apparently something of a difficult concept to the folks who are running my country.  Anyway, we’d like to help with understanding that distinction.

Glenn Beck is an opinion show.  Sean Hannity spouts opinion.  Shepard Smith is a news anchor.  Additionally, the TeleTubbies are not real, Dick Cheney is not Darth Vader, and Burger King is not an actual monarch.

The problem is that, while the presence of Hannity and Beck on Fox News is apparently enough to disqualify it as a true news organization, the presence of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, also opinion pundits but from the liberal side of the aisle, doesn’t disqualify MSNBC from being one.  I mean, heck, both of them were invited to an off-the-record briefing by the President. 

See, liberal opinion is "news", while conservative opinion is "sedition". 

Later that week, the most recent Nobel "Peace" Prize winner stepped up the war.  When the White House made a cabinet member available to the press pool, they specifically said that pool member Fox News was not allowed.  All of a sudden, all the other news organizations were roused from their slumber, got together and said that if Fox couldn’t get an interview, none of them would do an interview.  This brave, if belated, action made the White House blink, and Fox was allowed in.

It should never have gone this far.  Yeah, Presidents, Prime Ministers and Grand Poobahs from all over the world have had their issues with the press, and some organizations in particular.  But freezing them out is more for a Castro or Chavez then a leader who purportedly is preserving, protecting and defending a Constitution that includes freedom of the press. 

You want to complain, Mr. President?  You’ve got the bully pulpit.  But when you start being a bully, don’t be surprised if the kids on the block gang up, take their microphones and go home.  A truce was recently called, so the bully has learned his lesson and gone back into his house.  For now.

Odd, and slightly disconcerting, that the press had to educate our government on the Constitutional restrictions placed on that government.  But then, isn’t it always that way?  Government only responds to push-back; just ask General George Washington.  And anyone looking to give it more and more power over us should really consider this.

The latest war between the White House and Fox News has come to a truce, with the Press Secretary of the Nobel laureate for Peace and a senior VP for the news organization (I think I can still call it that) meeting together to call a cease-fire.  The website The Wrap notes, "No word whether the White House will backpedal on its pledge to keep Barack Obama from appearing on the News Corp. network until 2010."

Can’t face Fox, but claims to be able to face off against terrorists.  Indeed.

Heard this thought on right-wing talk radio today (Hugh Hewitt, to be exact):  The polls don’t show that most people are for a public option, it shows that they’re for a public option that doesn’t cost anything. 

I’m for a bigger house.  Doesn’t mean I’m going to (or should) get it.  The polls (or "cricket races" to our own Mark Olsen" show what people think about what they’ve been sold, not necessarily what they’re going to get.  Liberal blogs proclaim that the public wants the public option, when the public has been lied to about that option. 

Just more bread and circuses given away in order to coax the people to give government more power. 

Nancy Pelosi called them "immoral".  But by what standard is she measuring them?  Certainly not based on the numbers.

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better – drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That’s a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

It’s been higher in the past, but comparatively speaking, not as big a deal as Democrats have been making them out.

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Trim those profits, by undercutting them with a public option subsidised by you and me, and help put them out of business.  Quite the Big Government way.

And Obama et. al. know this.  They have all the same data the Associated Press has.  And they’re trying to pull one over on an unsuspecting public.

What we really need, based on the numbers, is socialized Tupperware!  I mean, shouldn’t fresh food and leftovers that last longer be the right of all Americans?  Isn’t fresh food more necessary than health care?  And please, they’re raking in 7.5% profit. The time is now to put all those evil Tupperware parties out of business.

From Chuck Asay (click for a larger version):