RomneyCare

I have fairly strong thoughts about "RomneyCare" and ObamaCare...but my views on this particular issue stems solely from the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution: 

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I firmly believe that the basis of ObamaCare or America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 as it is officialy titled is that national health care isn't found within the constitution.  Thus..it's unlawful without specifically amending the Constitution.

However, I believe that the various states have constitutional authority to enact their own versions, as Massachusetts has.  RomneyCare has been a disaster for Massachusetts...as it's driven costs up until they are the highest in the nation. 

The report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care foundation, showed that the average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008, 40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent.

This will happen all across the country...on January 1 of this year, the costs of my company's health insurance doubled...from $250 per month to over $500 per month...but I digress.

I don't oppose the concept of a state being able to enact "state" health insurance/care rules, though philosophically, I oppose it as a free market has much better controls on costs than any state mandate ever could.  Basically, I believe that the Federal government has no role in individual health care...none, that power is reserved to the states, or the people.

ObamaCare: 733 Exemptions So Far...

To date, the Dept of Health and Human Services has granted a whopping 733 exemptions.  The Washington Examiner is reporting that,

 ...the Department of Health and Human Services has issued hundreds of waivers to companies so they could be saved from the Obamacare legislative "fix." Now, we're told that an astonishing 733 companies and politically connected unions at last count threatened to drop their health care coverage for employees altogether if they did not receive a reprieve from the law.

The fact that any exemptions have been granted to date is a sure sign of corrupt process.  Most of those exemptions were granted to unions, or large contributors to the 2008 Obama campaign.  That's the problem.  If you aren't politically connected, you get screwed by the system...fortunately, for the rest of us, this law has been ruled as being unconstitutional.

ObamaCare Unconstitutional

Federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson: 

“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.”

Ilya Somin has an analysis: 

Today’s Florida district court ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional is by far the best court opinion on this issue so far. Judge Roger Vinson provides a thorough and impressive analysis of the federal government’s arguments claiming that the mandate is authorized by the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, and explains the flaws in each. He had already rejected the government’s claim that the mandate is constitutional because it is a tax in a previous ruling. So far, all three federal courts that have considered the tax argument have rejected it, instead ruling (in my view correctly) that the mandate is a penalty.

From the ruling:

The problem with this legal rationale, however, is it would essentially have unlimited application. There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort. The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that — when aggregated with similar economic decisions — affect the price of that particular product or service and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To be sure, it is not difficult to identify an economic decision that has a cumulatively substantial effect on interstate commerce; rather, the difficult task is to find a decision that does not....

The important distinction is that “economic decisions” are a much broader and far-reaching category than are “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce” [which Supreme Court precedent allows Congress to regulate]. While the latter necessarily encompasses the first, the reverse is not true. “Economic” cannot be equated to “commerce.” And “decisions” cannot be equated to “activities.” Every person throughout the course of his or her life makes hundreds or even thousands of life decisions that involve the same general sort of thought process that the defendants maintain is “economic activity.” There will be no stopping point if that should be deemed the equivalent of activity for Commerce Clause purposes...

[T]here are lots of markets — especially if defined broadly enough — that people cannot “opt out” of. For example, everyone must participate in the food market. Instead of attempting to control wheat supply by regulating the acreage and amount of wheat a farmer could grow as in Wickard, under this logic, Congress could more directly raise too low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market. Or, as was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system. Similarly, because virtually no one can be divorced from the transportation market, Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business...

Read the whole thing!



HT Don Surber & Instapundit

An Open Letter to Kathleen Sebelius: You Lied About ObamaCare

In an AOL opinion piece, Kathleen Sebelius is shilling yet again for ObamaCare.  Her column is filled with the lies and distortions that the Democratic Party, Barack Obama and Mrs. Sebelius have used since the introduction of this twisted piece of legislation.

Mrs. Sebelius, you lied to America during the legislative process that foisted this horrendous piece of legislation upon this country. You said repeatedly that this would save the country billions...you lied. Your own Medicare actuary has said that the "cost curve" will bend...upwards, not down. You lied when you said that Americans would be able to keep their health insurance, to quote Mr. Obama, "if they liked it." By the White House's own admission, 53% of all health insurance plans DONT MEET THE PROVISIONS OF THIS LAW! You lied again when you said that millions of people would sign up for the subsidized plans...as yet, fewer than 250,000 people have..

Your own department is reporting that,

...The Department of Health and Human Services estimated in July that it would now be insuring 375,000 people who had been previously shut out of the insurance market due to pre-existing conditions. But the administration recently admitted that only about 8,000 people with preexisting conditions had actually signed up. That's about 2 percent of the projected enrollment. {emphasis is mine, ed.}


A July report from the nonpartisan agency predicted that by 2016, four million people would defy the mandate and pay the fine for remaining uninsured. All told, according to CBO, about 21 million people will be uninsured in 2016 -- most of whom will be exempt from the fines altogether.

This week you granted more than 500 more waivers to companies and organizations that will exempt those groups to the provisions of this law...a law that you, yourself are exempt from having to participate in.  Since passage of this bill last March, you have granted waivers to more than 180 organized labour unions...Here's the list and here are some the largest exmptions:  

The Teamsters Union, which hailed Obama last March for "enacting historic health care reform, providing health insurance to millions of Americans who don't have it and controlling costs for millions more who do," obtained waivers for 17 different locals.
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), which celebrated the passage of Obamacare as "an achievement that will rank among the highest in our national experience," secured waivers for 28 different affiliates.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -- which exulted after the health care law's passage that "finally, affordable and comprehensive health care coverage will be available for millions of working Americans" -- saw eight of its affiliates win shelter from the Obamacare wrecking ball.

The Communications Workers of America, which sent its workers to lobby for Obamacare on Capitol Hill as part of the left-wing billionaire George Soros-funded Health Care for America Now front group, snagged a waiver that will spare a hefty 19,000 of its members from the onerous federal mandate.

And the Service Employees International Union, which poured $60 million into Democratic/Obama coffers in 2008 and millions more into the campaign for the federal health care takeover, added four new affiliates to the waiver list: SEIU Local 2000 Health and Welfare Fund, representing 161 enrollees; SEIU 32BJ North Health Benefit Fund, representing 7,020 enrollees; SEIU Local 300, Civil Service Forum Employees Welfare Fund, representing 2,000 enrollees; and SEIU Health & Welfare Fund, representing 1,620 enrollees.

That's in addition to three other previous SEIU waiver winners: Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees; Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees; and SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees. This brings the total number of Obamacare-promoting SEIU Obamacare refugees to an estimated 45,000 workers represented by seven SEIU locals.

When will you stop lying, Mrs. Sebelius? When? The House of Representatives voted by a bipartisan, and substantial majority to repeal this horrible law. Remember, this law is why your party suffered record losses in the House of Rep's...and this law will see you lose even more seats in 2012...when 23 Senators are up for reelection...

Stop lying and stop shilling for this bad piece of legislation. Stop Lying.

ObamaCare: Obama Lied!

ObamaCare won't allow you to keep your insurance "if you like it," nor will it keep costs down.  Video:



H/T Don Surber

ObamaCare: What Else It Does...

Here is some more info on ObamaCare:

THE CARE BILL HB3200

• Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
• Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
• Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).
• Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)
• Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.
• Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.
• Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
• Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)
• Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."   Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas

 They had to pass it before we could find out what was in it, said Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House.  We keep finding loathsome provisions in this bill.  I suspect that repeal will easily pass through the House, as it did a week or so ago...and may very well pass through the Senate.  After all, there are 23 Democratic Senators who are up for re-election next year.  ALL of those Senators voted to pass  this bill.  Many are up for a very tough reelection fight.  After all, if Russ Feingold, a Senator from Wisconsin, one of the most liberal states of the union can be defeated over his vote on this...pretty much all of them can be. 

Obama, will veto it...but it may very well be passed over his veto...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Future of Health Care In America: Thank You Mr. Obama

With the passage of ObamaCare earlier this year, and the appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick, who adores the British National Health Service, we can expect to see a great deal more of what happened to 37-year-old Jamie Merrett.  Mr. Merrett, a quadraplegic, was concerned about the poor level of care he was receiving under nurses supplied by NHS.  So, he installed a camera to record what his nurses were doing.  Watch this:



What you see is his unqualified nurse, turn off his ventilator. 

Just a few days after the webcam was set up early last year, it filmed nurse Violetta Aylward accidentally switching off the ventilator. In the video, the life-support system can be heard emitting a long, loud beep, causing Aylward to shout for help. A care assistant rushes into the room and asks the nurse: "What have you done?" Aylward replies, "Switched this off."
Conscious of what's happening, but powerless to move, Merrett can only smack his lips together as a warning. The care worker then tells Aylward to use a resuscitation bag to keep the patient breathing. However, instead of connecting it to the hole in his neck, she places it over his mouth. She can be heard urging, "Jamie, breathe please."

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we can expect under government directed health care.  Ms. Aylward, turned Mr. Merrett into a vegitable...due to the 21 minutes his ventilator was turned off.  Instead of turning it back on...they waited 21 minutes for paramedics to arrive...

This is the future of health care in America...Thank You Mr. Obama!

Little Noticed

Over on Legal Insurrection Blog, Professor Jacobsen has some very interesting "little noticed" facts about the America's Healthy Future Act:

• "Tucked inside the huge health reform bill signed into law last week were many surprising and little-noticed provisions that will affect consumers in ways large and small."
• "Deep within the massive health-care overhaul legislation, a few little-noticed provisions have quietly reignited one of the bitterest debates in medicine: how to balance the right of doctors, nurses and other workers to refuse to provide services on moral or religious grounds with the right of patients to get care."
• "A little-noticed provision of the health legislation has rescued federal support for a controversial form of sex education: teaching youths to remain virgins until marriage."
• "A little-noticed provision in the health reform bill will shed significant light on the payments drug and device companies make to doctors and teaching hospitals in California and the rest of the nation."
• "A little-noticed provision in the new health care law may not only dramatically increase paperwork for small businesses, but also put them at a disadvantage against their larger competitors."
• "In the manager's amendment Senate Leader Harry Reid added to the Senate health care bill, HR 3590, a little noticed provision allowed $7 billion in funding for Community Health Centers buried deep in Section 10503 of the 383-page amendment."
• "Effective for plan years beginning after Sept. 23, 2010, health plans that cover dependent children must continue to cover adult kids until they turn age 26. This little-noticed new requirement is a sure way to increase health insurance costs, which is exactly what Obama-care was supposed to prevent."
• "The Obama administration is trying to encourage people to buy annuities to ensure that they don't outlive their savings. But a little-noticed provision of the new health care reform law will slap a 3.8% tax on payouts from annuities purchased by high-income earners outside their workplace."
• "A little noticed provision added over the weekend to the Senate health bill earmarked $500 million this year for a "cures acceleration program."
• "Little-noticed (well, except by me) is the fact that Congress has repealed the anti-trust exemption for health insurance and that the reform plan sets up the basics of a federal infrastructure for insurance regulation. The federal government doesn’t just drop by and visit, they move in. Memo to state insurance regulators: the feds are outside, and they have a HUGE moving van.
• "[Jeff] Masters, who lives in Fort Lauderdale, is part of a growing number of Americans who are members of faith-based ``health sharing ministries'' where members directly pay for each others' medical bills. Members also pray for each other, and a ``get well'' card from a stranger isn't uncommon. National healthcare reform will force millions of Americans to buy insurance or face fines, but a little-noticed provision excludes people like Masters who belong to such groups."
  "As well as these and other major job-killing provisions, two little-noticed tax changes would also affect employment."
• "Drug and device companies will soon have to report payments to physicians in a national database, thanks to a little noted section of the health care reform bill called the Physician Payments Sunshine Act."
• "The new law also takes steps to keep doctors' doors open for Medicare patients. Physicians will get bonus payments for primary care, a little-noticed strategy to promote access for seniors."
• "A little-noticed provision of the new health care reform law requires employers to provide new mothers with “reasonable break time” to express breast milk for nursing children who are up to 12 months old. "
• "A little noticed national calorie labeling rule tucked into the legislation assures that within a couple of years, everyone who walks into a chain restaurant will see calories counts displayed alongside the price of a meal."
• All U.S. Hospitals Must Publicize “Standard Charges” - Hidden among the amendments to a section of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (the “Health Reform Legislation”), is the following little-noticed provision ...."
• "UV or not UV? A little-noticed provision in the new healthcare package adds a 10% levy to the cost of tanning sessions."
• "A little-noticed provision in the House-passed health-care plan would strip billions of dollars out of privately run Medicare plans that emphasize wellness and are increasingly popular among retirees in Ohio and nationally."
• "The health care reform legislation President Obama signed into law last week takes a little-noticed but precedent-setting swipe at executive pay excess."

So why weren't these noticed before? Because if the people of this country had been able to read this bill in it 3,000+ page entirety, there would have been an upsurge of anger that's not been seen before. That's why we get "little noticed" provisions and laws...then again, Major Media has begun to ban the word ObamaCare from usage. Jake Tapper of ABC has banned the use of the phrase from his blog.

Some liberal tweeps objecting to use of term “Obamacare” by contributor to my
blog. No offense was intended by her, but we will change.less than a minute
ago via UberTwitterJake
Tapperjaketapper

Others, including Allahpundit and the Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher,
questioned the change, earning this response:

@allahpundit @jtlol I try to be respectful to
both sides. Some find that term pejorative. End of story. Take it up with the WH
+ Dems.less than a minute
ago via UberTwitterJake Tapper

.

It just goes to show you, as the popularity of this horrendous legislation continues to plummit, Democrats and Liberals alike will begin to strenuously object to the label ObamaCare...because they don't want The One to be linked so closely to this invasion of American rights.

63% Support Repealing ObamaCare

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama told us that we'd learn to appreciate ObamaCare after it passed and was signed into law.  So far, that hasn't worked out too well.  A week or two ago, the Congressional Budget Office reported that it would cost an additional $115,000,000,000.00, above the roughly $850,000,000,000.00 the Democratically led Congress said it would.  Now, in a new poll, Rasmussen Reports finds that,

63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.  Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.   Currently, just 32% oppose repeal.

That's the public at large.  On the other hand, our political masters are still insisting that its a good plan for the country,  despite all the conniving deals struck in those back rooms with unions giving them all sorts of tax exemptions on their plans, while the rest of us foot the bill.  So, the political class,

continues to be a strong supporter of the plan, however. While 67% of Mainstream voters believe the plan will be bad for America, 77% of the Political Class disagree and think it be good for the country.

Which I think contributes to the roughly 20% approval rating for Congress as a whole.  I think that they collectively are out of touch with American and it's time to vote all of them out of office.  The harm they're doing to the country is incalculable and will  take decades for us to recover.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER, RE-ELECT NO-ONE!!!

Obama Care Failing Already...

Actuaries of the federal government are already stating that Obama Care will fail in what the Democrats have promised for that past year to deliver.  Here are the major issues that they have found wrong with the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009. 

1. People losing coverage: About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.


2. Huge fines for companies: Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance.

3. Higher costs for consumers: Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.

4. A program created to fail: The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”

5. Spending increases: Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.

6. “Free-riders”: An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.

7. Spending reductions are fiction: Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”

8. You can’t keep your doctor: Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.

9. Coverage but no care: A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.

It's so bad that a vast majority of the states have introduced legislation that nullifies the basic tenets of the federal law.  For once, Florida is leading the charge,

The Florida legislature voted Thursday to place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would ban any laws that compel someone to “participate in any health care system.” It requires a 60 percent vote to succeed. The legislation is modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which has been introduced or announced in 42 states.

No New Promises: by Keither Hennessey

This column is by Keither Hennessey...if you wish to read the entire thing, please click on the title.

This comment is addressed to those fiscally conservative Members of the House of Representatives thinking of voting for pending health care legislation.


America is on an unsustainable fiscal path. If we do nothing to address this, within 25 years the U.S. government will default on its debt, with devastating consequences for the U.S. economy and society.

We are on this path because past elected officials made unsustainable benefit promises and enshrined them in law. In some cases they paid for those promises in the short run. In all cases they created programs that would grow more generous over time.

Those past elected officials enjoyed the political benefits of creating a new promise, and they shifted the burden of paying for these promises onto their successors and onto future generations of citizens.

You are their successor, and we are those future generations. The bill is coming due. The gap between future spending and taxes is the most important economic problem America faces. If we don’t fix it, we’re screwed.

To fix this problem we need to slow the growth of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending. You may think we also need to raise taxes, either for reasons of policy or of political compromise.

The long-term fiscal gap is enormous. It’s not measured in billions or even tens of billions of dollars. It’s measured in percentage points of GDP. One percent of GDP this year is $146 billion, and our fiscal gap is many times that. We need to make huge fiscal policy changes to avoid economic disaster.

Big changes are easier to make if we phase them in gradually, so people have time to plan and adjust. The longer we wait to start, the bigger the necessary changes, and the more wrenching they are to American society.

Good policy is to start these changes immediately, so that they’re in place and it’s hard to repeal them. Set the changes up so they grow steadily over time. Turn the aircraft carrier by an enormous amount, begin immediately and do it gradually, but lock the full course and ultimate direction in now. American society can then incrementally adjust to the changing conditions, and elected officials will not be confronted with sudden, disruptive, painful policy spikes they will be tempted to postpone or repeal.
Slowing the growth of popular entitlement programs is politically painful. So is raising taxes. Elected officials get punished for both.

This problem may seem politically intractable because of serious policy disagreements about the relative mix of spending changes and tax increases. Each party sees electoral advantage in attacking the other’s possible proposed solutions, so it’s hard to cooperate across the aisle.

As the pain of a government default approaches, markets will punish the U.S. economy to the point where elected officials will be forced to negotiate a solution. The danger is that you and your colleagues wait until this time, when the changes needed will be bigger and even more painful. If you can fix this before the markets force you to, America will be better off...

Read the whole thing

New Gallup Poll finds Americans suddenly souring more on Obama; Now, why could that be?

As hard to believe as that is...that's the headline in today's LA Times article.  But the entire article is dripping with sarcasm that's an even better desciptor of the journalists feelings on this. 

Americans, apparently unhappy with President Obama insulting Asian allies by twice postponing his long-planned trip there this week, have turned against the Democrat in a major poll.


Now, a new Gallup Poll finds, Obama's public approval rating has suddenly fallen to the worst level since he took office however many years ago that seems. He was right around 70% in January of 2009.

Today, Gallup reports, the ex-senator has plunged to a 46% approval rating.

Today, even more disapprove of his presidency, 48%. That seems right down there in the Sarah Palin neighborhood.  [It seems that only Palin is less popular than Obama, ed.]

True, Obama's approval ratings had dropped faster during his first year in office than any recent rookie president. They had hovered around the 50% level the last couple of months.

But in recent days Gallup found Americans suddenly souring even more until more disapprove than approve.  [but it couldn't possibly be about wasting his entire 1st year on seizing control of the health care industry could it? All emphasis is mine, ed]

 Had Mr. Obama actually paid attention at the beginning of last summer, he'd not be in this hole.  Of course stupidly pursuing something that is as unpopular of the government taking control of the health care system in this country wasn't very smart either.  After all, when normally rather docile American voters begin to agitate against a stated policy in ever growing numbers most politicians are intellingent enough to heed the warnings.  But not Barack Obama.  He must have the most incompetant advisors in our history...

He's appointed the brother of one wavering Congressman to the 9th Judicial Circuit.  Promised another that he would be appointed as head of NASA, and yet another would be appointed to be the Ambassador to NATO...when you combine that with all the bribes in the Senate (GatorAid, Louisianna Purchase, CornHusker Kickback), as well as the latest plan to "deem the bill to have passed" by voting for a "rule change" leads me to believe that this administration has no idea just how angry the electorate is becoming with this whole sham.



To exascerbate matters, now Congress, the Democratic leadership is held in the lowest esteem since polling this issue began. 

Oh, speaking of Congress, the new Gallup Poll also finds that barely 16% of Americans approve of its job while 80% (as in eight out of every ten Americans) now disapprove of the work being done by both bodies and their Democratic leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Both of whom are up for re-election in November.

It doesn't get much lower than that, does it?

Swinging Against Health Care Bills

It appears that voters in "swing" districts, that is, those districts which usually vote GOP but elected Democrats in the past two cycles, are turning significantly against the bills being considered for passage this week.  In a new survey by the Polling Company for Independent Women's Voice, a huge majority of voters in those districts are now against passage of the bill.

The survey shows astonishing intensity and sharp opposition to reform, far more than national polls reflect. For 82% of those surveyed, the heath-care bill is either the top or one of the top three issues for deciding whom to support for Congress next November. (That number goes to 88% among independent women.) Sixty percent want Congress to start from scratch on a bipartisan health-care reform proposal or stop working on it this year. Majorities say the legislation will make them and their loved ones (53%), the economy (54%) and the U.S. health-care system (55%) worse off—quite the trifecta.

I seems that 70% would vote against their Congressman if he votes for the Senate bill (or any of the three now before Congress).  That number includes a large minority of Democrats, as well as a very large number of  independents (72%) as well as 88% of Republicans. 

Over 70%—indeed in several districts over 80%—of respondents, across party lines, said that the following information made them less supportive: the bill mandates that individuals purchase insurance or face penalties; it cuts Medicare Advantage; it will force potentially millions to lose existing coverage; it will cost an estimated $2.3 trillion over its first 10 years; and it will grant unprecedented new powers to the Health and Human Services secretary.

It's not all bad news though, the survey does show that a Congressman can bail himself out of this hole (if he had previously voted for the bill) by voting against it now.   Almost half of the respondents (49%) said they would vote for a Congressman IF they voted against it now.   

More dramatically, 58% of voters say they will be more supportive of their congressman's re-election if he votes against the bill a second time. However, for those members who voted against it in November and vote yes this time, 61% of voters say they will be less likely to support their re-election.

So, if the Democrats do pass this horrendous bill, they will at the very least lose control of the House of Representatives, because fully 35 of those seats are in these "swing" districts.  I predict that voter anger will be so bad that Democrats will lose at least 100 seats if not 150...because the growing backlash against this bill has begun to spread broadly across the middle class, as they will be the ones who ultimately foot the costs of this bill.

Obama is Lying: Dick Durbin Says So

Dick Durbin says Mr. Obama is lying...what do you say?

HT Moe Lane

Why Have a Huge Health Care Reform Bill?

Recently, I read about a novel idea. Instead of taking on health care in one huge bill which no one could possibly understand and runs to a couple of thousand pages...why not produce a se series of bills that take on one small part of the problem as once? This way incremental reforms could be implemented that don't screw up the system in ways that will not just be difficult to repair, but the results of each action could be far easier to measure.

The first bill could end the health insurance industry's anti-trust protection, as well as eliminating the barriers that keep the 1300+ health insurance companies from competing across state lines. For instance, the state of California only permits 6 companies to operate within the state. By eliminating the barriers that forbid that would bring down premiums naturally as the companies compete for customers.

The next bill could initiate Tort reform. Most of the tort lawyers are parasites, and oddly enough, like John Edwards many are Democrats and contribute heavily to the Democratic party. Limit damages to actual loss, and only with gross negligence. Loser pays the winner's legal bills. A large reason why health care costs so much is that doctors order unnecessary tests in order to "cover their asses" from law suits. While doctors do make mistakes, many are quite conscientious about their profession and don't desire to kill their patients...after all that's bad for business.

Another bill could sever the link that has developed since the labour shortages of World War 2, when factories who were short of workers, and weren't permitted to pay more due to wage freezes, began to offer "free health care" to their employees. In the same bill, reauthorize health care cooperatives (insurance exchanges). The moment you do this, people go out and join co-ops and get great rates.

Still another bill could mandate that pharmaceutical companies must sell their wares to other countries at the same rate as they charge here. This would end the American de facto subsidy of the rest of the world's pharmacies.

It would then be possible to actually take on some the problems with Medicare. The amount of fraud is stupendous. Today's Medicare costs run upwards of $400,000,000,000.00. Under the present system, it's estimated that somewhere between 10 and 20% is lost in waste and fraud. That's more than the GDP' s of a number of countries! Decree that those now under the age of 50 will no longer be eligible for benefits upon early retirement. Move the retirement age back a couple years, since people are living far longer (I would move the age to 70, unless health reasons interfere, as a minimum for eligibility for Medicare). Prosecute all the fraudulent disability claims vigorously.

House GOP Responds To White House

House minority leader, John Boehner (R., Ohio) and Whip Eric Cantor (R., Va.) have just responded to Mr. Obama's invitation to bipartisan talks on the health care bills presently waiting action in Congress. Here is their answer regarding the upcoming health-care summit:

Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground on health care, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats. Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.

Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care.

If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process.

Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency. Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill. Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?

As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills. The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions.

Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such "experts?" Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate? Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March.

Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of transparency and openness?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks. For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May.

The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Joe Lieberman Set To Vote Against Health Care Bills

Joe Lieberman, according to the NYTimes, will vote against the current plans to seize health care as the bills stand now. This is one step in the right direction...now, we need to convince another 10 moderate Democratic Senators to do the same, and the bill dies...

Contact your Senators NOW!

Opposition to Health Plans Hardens

Despite hardening opposition, Democrats in Congress continue to push government seizure of the American health care system. Rasmussen Reportts a new poll of LIKELY voters, not just of registered voters (but rather those who are likely to actually vote) as being 51% against government health care plans, with only 41% in support. Of those who oppose the plans presently being considered by Congress and the Obama Administration, 41% strongly oppose the measures, while on 23% of those who support them do so strongly.

Both the Senate and the House have Democratic majorities, which explains why both keep pushing on health care despite consistent public opposition. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats favor the plan, while 83% of Republicans and 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed to it. {emphasis mine}

“This suggests that public opinion about the health care plan is hardening,” says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. “Despite the fact that most American believe our health care system needs major changes, most are opposed to what Congress is currently doing about it.”

Yet, despite this national opposition, Democrats are still attempting to wrest more intrusive power for the Federal Government, figuring that once they get this massive spending program in place the likelihood of it being overturned in a future Congress is minimal. A major sticking point for the public seems to be Congress' exemption from its own plans...

North Dakota Democrats Threaten Regulatory Reprisals Against Blue Cross/Blue Sheild

In North Dakota, Democratic States Senators are threatening regulatory action against Blue Cross/Blue Shield of ND.

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) A North Dakota state senator says recent Blue Cross Blue Shield opposition to some aspects of health care reform may prompt a response in the Legislature.

Bismarck Sen. Tracy Potter and Fargo Democratic Sens. Tom Fiebiger and Tim Mathern objected to a Blue Cross letter to policyholders about federal health care reform proposals. Fiebiger and Mathern met with company officials Friday.

The letter opposed any so-called “public option” for health insurance that would be run by the federal government. It said the federal health care package will force private insurance rates to rise.

The senators asked Blue Cross about the cost of the mailing.

Blues spokeswoman Denise Kolpack says it cost almost $22,400 for almost 216,000 letters. She says the cost was kept down because for most customers, the material was included in a regular required mailing.

Potter says the senators will consider drafting new disclosure rules for the Fargo health insurer.

I shouldn't be surprised that this is happening, what should be surprising is that it has taken so long to occur. Last spring, many Democrats were whispering that "by any means necessary" they would get government seizure of health care, and I guess this is the starting bell of government coercion against the insurance industry..."go along with your own destruction...or else."

Health Care Overhaul

Here's the only way I'll support the government seizure of health care in this country:

Senators who support a government-run health plan, the so-called "public option," as part of legislation overhauling the health care system apparently are putting their money where their mouths are.

Three Senate Democrats on Friday embraced an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a fierce opponent of a public option, to force all lawmakers to enroll in any government-controlled plan that is passed.

"Sen. Coburn is to be commended for his commitment to the public option," Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said, with more than a drip of sarcasm. Dodd, along with Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, joined Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah in publicly supporting the amendment.

"Seventeen years ago, when I first ran for Congress, I promised I'd pay my own health insurance until Congress passed health insurance for everyone," Brown said. "I've paid it out of my pocket since then. I look forward with great eagerness to join the public option as soon as it's available."

The amendment is one of many that senators are debating as Democratic leaders try to shape a bill that their caucus can coalesce around and overcome Republican opposition.

Coburn's amendment is intended to give pause to lawmakers who say a public option is essential to overhauling the U.S. health care system. By raising the prospect of forcing lawmakers to join any public plan that is passed, Coburn is betting that supporters won't be as sure-footed.

But it comes as no surprise that Dodd, Mikulski and Brown offered their support. The three Democrats helped pass the amendment out of the Senate health committee in August when it was first introduced. Other Democrats, however, weren't as supportive, saying the amendment was flawed because it suggested the public option would be the only plan available.

Sen. Judd Gregg was the only Republican on the Senate Health committee to vote against the Coburn amendment, saying he wouldn't put anyone -- not his constituents or his fellow senators -- in a public plan.

What is genuinely shocking to me is that one of my Maryland Senators, Barb Mikulski is a supporter of this...Way to go Barb!